A heated political exchange has put President William Ruto’s government under fresh scrutiny after Titus Makhanu made controversial claims about the ethnic composition of public appointments in key state corporations.
What made the discussion even more explosive was Makhanu’s response when Julius Ruto challenged his remarks. Rather than withdraw his statement, he issued a direct courtroom challenge.
Speaking during Citizen TV’s Citizen DayBreak discussion, Makhanu alleged that most public appointments made in key parastatals had gone to people from President Ruto’s ethnic community.
He argued that the pattern raised serious questions about fairness and representation in government institutions.
However, Julius Ruto was quick to push back, describing Makhanu’s remarks as “unfair and uncouth.”
The response immediately intensified the exchange, turning what was already a sensitive political discussion into a confrontation over the credibility of the allegations.
But Makhanu appeared unwilling to back down.
In a particularly striking response, he challenged anyone who believed his remarks were unfair to take him to court, insisting that he was prepared to defend his position with evidence.
“If you feel I am unfair, take me to court and I’ll meet you there with evidence,” Makhanu declared.
His statement has added another dimension to the controversy, especially because public appointments remain an important issue in Kenya’s political debate.
For many Kenyans, appointments to government institutions are not simply about rewarding individuals with influential positions. They are also about equal opportunity, professional qualifications, regional inclusion and whether public resources are being administered fairly.
The controversy raises an uncomfortable question for the government: are appointments to key parastatals reflecting the diversity of the country, or are some communities enjoying greater access to influential positions?
At the same time, allegations of ethnic favouritism should be examined against verifiable appointment records rather than political accusations alone.
A proper assessment would require examining the names, qualifications, positions and backgrounds of those appointed across the different institutions.
Makhanu has now publicly put his evidence on the table, at least in principle. The question is whether the challenge will lead to a formal legal confrontation or remain another heated television debate.