Why Kalonzo's secret meeting with Muthama matters

As the country gears up for the forthcoming general election, we have reached a critical stage in the Opposition’s preparations where accusations, counter-accusations and questions of loyalty are beginning to shape political conversations. The question of who will carry the Opposition’s presidential ticket is becoming increasingly difficult, especially as several principals weigh their ambitions against the possibility of working together. It is against this background that we must critically examine the probable outcomes of the reported meeting between Kalonzo Musyoka and Johnston Muthama.

For starters, Mr Muthama is not just another Kenyan politician. Coming from Kalonzo’s backyard, Ukambani, and with his vast business interests and a financial war chest, Muthama has, over the years, built a name for himself within the broader Kenyan political ecosystem. He not only has a history with Mr Kalonzo, having been involved in political negotiations at some of the most consequential moments in Kenya’s recent political history, but has also carved out an image as just about the only man who can cut political deals and undertake serious commitments for and on behalf of Kalonzo.

To understand why we should all consider this meeting significant, we must go back to the period following the disputed 2007 presidential election when Kenya was experiencing serious political tension, and the country was eventually brought into a power-sharing arrangement following mediation led by former United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan. Around this time, Kalonzo rose to be the Vice-President under President Mwai Kibaki in January 2008 and word has it that Muthama was among the political figures involved in negotiations on Kalonzo’s side during that period. While it would be wrong to suggest that one individual alone determined the outcome, the episode illustrates the importance of political negotiations in shaping alliances.

Moreover, Kalonzo’s subsequent relationship with Raila Odinga and the domineering presence of Muthama around them during this time also brings into focus his significant role in advocating for Kalonzo's interests within the formation of coalitions. In 2013, Kalonzo became Raila’s running mate under the Coalition for Reforms and Democracy, while in 2017 the two again worked together under the National Super Alliance. These alliances, most importantly, were the result of intense backroom negotiations involving several political leaders and parties, each with its own interests and ambitions. Most notably, Muthama was always present to speak for and represent the interests of Kalonzo, who, without doubt, remains the only constant factor come 2027 within the broader opposition politics.

It is against this background, and broader history, that we must ask ourselves some critical questions. First, could Muthama believe that Kalonzo has an opportunity to secure the Opposition’s presidential ticket in 2027, and could he, therefore, be considering how his political experience might help bring the other principals around to that position?

This is a possibility worth examining, even though it is not a fact. Indeed, if Muthama believes that Kalonzo should lead the Opposition, his experience in the mechanics of the formation of the government, political relationships and financial war chest places him as the most suitable to lead Kalonzo’s side of the Opposition talks. However, the decision would ultimately depend on the other opposition principals and the process they agree to use in selecting their candidate, as no single politician can guarantee that all the other leaders will accept the outcome.

The challenge, for the Opposition, is that several leaders may have presidential ambitions of their own and the question is how they will manage those ambitions without destroying the coalition they need to build. If the process is seen as unfair, some leaders may decide to run independently or pursue other political arrangements and that is why the Opposition needs a credible selection mechanism and an understanding of what happens to those who do not secure the ticket.

Second, could Muthama be looking at the broader presidential contest and calculating what might happen if several opposition leaders decide to run separately? Imagine a race in which multiple candidates divide the Opposition vote. Such a scenario could make the distribution of support across the country particularly important and could lead to a runoff if no candidate meets the constitutional requirements for winning in the first round.

Under Article 138 of the Constitution, a presidential candidate must receive more than half of all votes cast and at least 25 per cent of the votes cast in more than half of the counties to win in the first round. If no candidate meets those requirements, a fresh election is held between the leading candidates. This makes the question of coalition-building important, but it does not mean a runoff is inevitable or that Kalonzo would necessarily reach one.

Could Muthama, therefore, believe that Kalonzo has an opportunity to build a coalition capable of competing in such a contest? That remains a political possibility. Any serious assessment would have to consider the actual distribution of support, the candidates who enter the race and the decisions voters make. It would be a mistake to assume that particular regions or communities will automatically support a candidate because of their historical political associations.

Finally, and perhaps the most important, could Muthama be attempting to bring Kalonzo closer to Ruto’s camp? Currently, Muthama’s association with Ruto makes the question understandable, as he remains one of Ruto’s focal points in the larger Ukambani since their cooperation in the run-up to 2022.

Nevertheless, Kenyan political history shows that alliances can change when leaders reassess their interests and the political circumstances around them. Kalonzo’s cooperation with Kibaki after the 2007 election and his subsequent alliances with Raila demonstrate that political relationships are not necessarily permanent. If an effort to bring Kalonzo closer to Ruto were ever confirmed, it would raise questions about the terms of the arrangement, the future of the Opposition and the interests of the parties involved. But political consultations are not, by themselves, proof of a secret deal.

Ultimately, the greater issue is whether the Opposition can agree on a presidential candidate and maintain unity after that decision. The principals must determine how the candidate will be selected, what commitments will bind the coalition and how leaders who do not secure the ticket will be accommodated. Without clear answers, the risk of competing candidacies and alternative alliances will remain a central concern.

Given Muthama’s political history, his engagements with Kalonzo and the significance of their meeting will become clearer through their subsequent statements, party decisions and any agreements they publicly confirm.

As such, the question is not simply whether Muthama is helping Kalonzo, positioning him for a possible runoff or seeking to bring him closer to Ruto. The deeper question is whether the opposition can manage its competing ambitions through a credible political process. But until that question is answered, speculation will continue.