The political class is once again testing the limits of inflammatory rhetoric, raising fears that ethnic mobilisation and incitement could trigger a repeat of the 2007-08 post-election violence.
The latest controversy involves UDA-nominated MP Joseph Wainaina, who has been accused of making remarks targeting members of a particular community in the Rift Valley based on how they vote in the upcoming elections.
Jubilee secretary general Moitalel ole Kenta described Wainaina’s comments as “reckless”, “divisive” and “dangerous”.
In a statement on Monday, Kenta said suggesting that any Kenyan does not belong in a part of their own country because of how they vote or where their political loyalties lie is to “plant a seed that this country cannot afford to let take root again.”
“It is incitement dressed up in the language of political loyalty, and it has no place in our public discourse, not from a backbencher, not from a governor, not from a Member of Parliament, and certainly not from anyone who sits in the National Assembly,” Kenta said.
Kenta challenged the National Cohesion and Integration Commission (NCIC), the Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DCI) and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP) to investigate Wainaina, warning that NCIC should not become a “toothless bystander” as politicians test the limits of incitement.
Githunguri MP Gathoni Wamuchomba demanded the arrest of Wainaina and Health CS Aden Duale over what she described as hate speech. She called Wainaina’s remarks “a dangerous route” and warned that political leaders had no right to dictate which candidate a community should support.
Kiharu MP Ndindi Nyoro also condemned the remarks, urging politicians to seek votes through persuasion rather than threats and intimidation.
Religious leaders contacted by the Star also warned against the trajectory and called for action.
Rev Dr Nelson Makanda, vice chancellor of Africa International University, said that, at the very least, those propagating hate and violence should face the law.
“Action should be taken by the relevant authorities — the NCIC, DCI and the National Police Service as a whole — to explain their remarks in court. This will provide deterrence,” Makanda, who also served as General Secretary of the Evangelical Alliance of Kenya and Deputy General Secretary of National Council of Churches in Kenya, said.
Makanda warned that if unchecked, incitement could escalate on social media, placing the country “in a dangerous place”.
The warning is significant as political rhetoric is increasingly amplified online.
The May 2026 Weaponised Identity and Digital Polarisation in Kenya report by Code for Africa found that Facebook, TikTok and X had become key spaces for ethnic and exclusionary narratives, with political remarks, security incidents and local disputes repeatedly transformed into wider campaigns of ethnic division.
The report warns that social media is “increasingly being weaponised to fuel fear, mistrust, and digital polarisation”, with isolated incidents being used to “stigmatise entire communities”.
Makanda said government agencies should work together despite NCIC’s lack of prosecutorial powers, and urged IEBC to bar politicians found culpable of incitement.
Rev Canon Chris Kinyanjui Kamau, the General Secretary of the National Council of Churches of Kenya, regretted that most politicians cited for hate speech were Christians, saying they had effectively broken both Christ’s teachings and the law.
“Jesus Christ doesn’t teach us to slander others and preach hate speech. Freedom of speech also doesn’t allow for hate mongering,” he told the Star.
Kinyanjui attributed the rhetoric to panic among politicians as the 2027 contest draws closer.
“The panic is real and the politicians are now facing the reality of facing their constituents. But we are urging for calm. Even if they lose, they will have an opportunity to seek office another time,” he said.
The Kenya Commission on Human Rights also warned that recent developments echoed the triggers of the 2007 violence.
“NCIC was as a result of that period and despite its mandate, there are limitations. For instance, what amounts to hate speech?” said Ernest Cornel, the commission’s communications and advocacy head.
He said political language was evolving and existing definitions and lists of hate speech needed regular updating.
He called for Parliament to strengthen NCIC's mandate and independence, but warned that appointments would remain a concern if commissioners were politically influenced.
Uasin Gishu and North Rift leaders have also called for action against Wainaina. Huruma MCA Kimani Wanjohi urged NCIC to summon and investigate him, warning that inflammatory rhetoric could reopen the wounds of the 2007-08 post-election violence.
Former Bahati MP Kimani Ngunjiri similarly cautioned against language that could reignite ethnic tensions.
“It is heart-breaking to hear such words from a nominated MP, speaking in Eldoret — a place I have always said is home to a great diaspora of Kikuyu people who have built their lives, their businesses, and their families there over generations,” Ngunjiri said.
“A nomination to Parliament is a call to build bridges, not to burn them. It is a call to unite communities, not to threaten them with the very people who share their blood,” he said.
Wainaina, however, has rejected the accusations, saying he was misquoted and that his remarks were taken out of context. In a social media post, he said he lost his father during the 2007-08 post-election violence and could therefore not advocate ethnic confrontation.
The controversy adds to a growing list of inflammatory statements as Kenya enters an increasingly tense election cycle.
Mukurweini MP John Kaguchia, CS Duale, DCP leader Rigathi Gachagua, Senate Majority leader Aaron Cheruiyot and Homa Bay Town MP Peter Kaluma are among politicians whose remarks have recently attracted accusations of hate speech or incitement.
NCIC has summoned Duale, Gachagua, Kaguchia and Public Service CS Geoffrey Ruku over remarks under investigation. While Gachagua and Duale have not appeared, Kaguchia and Kaluma have faced the commission.
The Law Society of Kenya has also opened a review of remarks attributed to Kaguchia and Kaluma, warning that political office does not shield advocates from their professional and ethical obligations.
The alleged incitement is escalating at a particularly sensitive period as Kenya heads towards a closely fought election. As campaigns intensify, ethnic identities, political alliances, economic grievances and competition for state power are becoming increasingly intertwined.
In August, NCIC launched a roadmap aimed at preventing electoral violence, hate speech and political intolerance ahead of the 2027 General Election. The plan emphasises early warning, monitoring tensions and responding before disputes escalate into violence.
IEBC has separately warned that politicians who use hate speech, ethnic mobilisation or violence could face sanctions, including disqualification from the 2027 election.
But the capacity of these institutions to act consistently when the offenders are politically powerful remains a concern.
While NCIC has been talking tough, enforcement has been slow and, critics argue, appears selective or politically influenced, undermining the deterrent effect of the law.
Further, critics, especially within the opposition ranks, have questioned the impartiality of the DCI, particularly when investigations involve political actors aligned with the broad-based government.
Kinyanjui said the handling of Kaguchia’s arrest illustrated those concerns, arguing that unnecessary force was used.
“We, however, didn’t see the same with Opondo Kaluma,” he said.
He added that NCIC was not doing enough, even if there was an attempt to act.
The result is a dangerous combination: politicians are increasingly willing to use inflammatory language while citizens remain sceptical that institutions will punish those who cross the line.
The Kofi Annan Foundation’s 2026-27 Electoral Vulnerability Index has flagged Kenya as among elections requiring heightened attention to the risk of violence. The Foundation says political parties and candidates must avoid inflammatory rhetoric, while civil society, the media and social-media platforms have a role in countering hate speech and disinformation.
