JUBILEE FIRES BACK: PARTY ACCUSES KENYA KWANZA OF ‘HYPOCRISY’ AND POLITICAL REVISIONISM

 CIVIC LENS GAZETTE | MONDAY, 28 SEPTEMBER 2026

A political war of words has opened another front in Kenya — and this time, the battlefield is the church pulpit.

Jubilee Party has issued a strongly worded statement accusing the Kenya Kwanza administration of using religious spaces to lecture Kenyans on morality and political conduct while, in Jubilee's view, failing to confront its own record in government. The statement, issued on Monday, carries a tone that is unusually direct even by the standards of Kenya's increasingly heated political debate.

Titled “Statement on the Regime's Hypocrisy, Power-Blinded Rhetoric, and Desperate Revisionism,” the document was signed by Jubilee Party Secretary-General Hon. Montel Ole Kenta and dated September 28, 2026.

Jubilee's criticism centres on remarks President William Ruto reportedly made from a church setting, where the Head of State addressed questions of political conduct and what the party describes as inappropriate public utterances by other leaders.

The party's response is that such criticism becomes difficult to reconcile with the government's own record.

That is Jubilee's argument.

And it is an argument the party has chosen to make without much cushioning.

‘A CHURCH IS A SANCTUARY’

At the heart of the statement is the symbolism of a president speaking from a church pulpit.

Jubilee argues that a church should represent truth, humility and spiritual reflection, and questions the appropriateness of using such a setting to criticise other political leaders.

The party says there is an irony in a sitting president using a religious platform to preach restraint while, in its assessment, presiding over what it calls institutional excesses.

Jubilee goes further, accusing the administration of attempting to claim the moral high ground while being, in the party's words, “blinded” by power and its own failures.

These are serious political allegations, and they should be understood as Jubilee's characterisation of the government rather than independently established findings.

Still, the choice of language is significant.

The party could have issued a routine rebuttal.

It did not.

Instead, it chose words such as “hypocrisy,” “power-blinded rhetoric” and “desperate revisionism” — language designed to draw a sharp line between what Jubilee believes the government says about itself and what the party believes Kenyans experience on the ground.

THE ECONOMY BECOMES PART OF THE FIGHT

Jubilee's criticism does not stop at the church.

The statement connects the political argument to economic hardship, taxation and what it describes as broken government promises.

The party says millions of Kenyans have faced economic difficulties under the current administration and argues that the government therefore has limited moral authority to lecture citizens and political opponents about dignity, accountability and proper conduct.

Again, these are political claims made by Jubilee.

But they speak directly to one of the central questions surrounding Kenya's political conversation ahead of the next General Election: how should a government defend its record when its opponents are determined to measure that record against the daily experience of ordinary citizens?

For the opposition and other critics, the answer is straightforward — performance must be judged by outcomes.

For the government and its supporters, the argument is likely to be different, with attention placed on its development programme, reforms and the circumstances it inherited.

That disagreement is not going away.

JUBILEE'S BROADER ATTACK

The statement describes Kenya Kwanza as a government that, according to Jubilee, was built on unfulfilled commitments, institutional arrogance and systemic failure.

The wording is political and deliberately confrontational.

Jubilee says a government that has failed to meet its promises cannot claim the authority to lecture others on accountability and governance.

The party also accuses the administration of contributing to what it describes as a breakdown of public trust.

That accusation is particularly important because trust is one of the most valuable — and fragile — currencies in politics.

Governments can survive criticism.

They can survive opposition attacks.

But when citizens stop believing official explanations or promises, every new announcement is likely to be judged against what came before.

That is where Jubilee appears to be placing its argument.

THE 2022 ELECTION STILL HANGS OVER POLITICS

The statement then turns towards the last General Election.

Jubilee says Kenyans remember what happened during the previous election and cannot simply have that history rewritten through what it calls “state-sponsored propaganda, political theatre, or pulpit politics.”

The reference is clearly political.

Kenya's 2022 presidential election was fiercely contested, and the aftermath included legal challenges and competing narratives about the electoral process and political alliances.

The Supreme Court ultimately upheld the presidential election result in September 2022.

That historical fact matters because the Jubilee statement invokes the memory of the election not as an isolated event, but as part of its broader argument that Kenyans should judge current political messaging against their recollection of the country's recent political history.

The party's closing message is blunt: “Kenyans know better.”

It is not merely a criticism of one speech.

It is an attempt to frame the coming political contest as a battle over memory — who remembers what was promised, who remembers what happened, and whose version of Kenya's political story should be believed.

WHY THIS MATTERS NOW

The timing of the statement is important.

Kenya is approaching the 2027 General Election, and political parties are already positioning themselves for the contest.

The political temperature is rising.

Every speech by a senior government official is being scrutinised by opponents. Every criticism of the opposition is being dissected. Every policy announcement is increasingly viewed through the lens of the next election.

That environment creates a familiar danger.

Political debate can easily shift from policy to personalities.

From development plans to insults.

From evidence to accusation.

And from what politicians intend to do to what they believe their opponents have done wrong.

Jubilee's latest statement fits squarely into that environment.

It is an opposition-style political response, but it also reveals something larger about where the country's political conversation is heading.

The parties are preparing their arguments now.

THE RELIGION-POLITICS QUESTION

There is another layer to the controversy: the relationship between religion and politics.

Churches have historically been important spaces for public discussion in Kenya. Politicians regularly attend religious functions, make speeches and engage congregations.

But the use of religious platforms for political messaging has also generated debate.

The Jubilee statement is effectively asking where the boundary should be drawn.

Can political leaders use church platforms to defend government policy?

Can they criticise political opponents from the pulpit?

Should religious spaces remain primarily places of worship and community engagement?

Or are they legitimate public forums where leaders can address national political questions?

There is no single answer accepted by everyone.

But the debate itself is unlikely to disappear.

And with the 2027 election approaching, it may become even more prominent.

A FIGHT OVER MORAL AUTHORITY

Perhaps the most interesting part of the Jubilee statement is not the individual accusations.

It is the fight over moral authority.

Jubilee is essentially saying: before the government tells Kenyans how political leaders should behave, it must first answer questions about its own record.

That is a classic opposition argument.

Governments, meanwhile, generally respond by pointing to their achievements, defending their decisions and arguing that critics are ignoring the realities of governing.

The public is left to assess the competing claims.

And that is where political journalism matters.

A party statement is not automatically proof.

Neither is a government statement.

Both are part of the political record, but they represent competing interests and interpretations.

The job of the public — and the media — is to separate what is documented from what is claimed.

JUBILEE'S MESSAGE TO KENYANS

By the end of its statement, Jubilee returns to one central message.

Kenyans remember.

The party believes voters have long memories and cannot simply be persuaded to forget previous political events because a new narrative is presented from a powerful office or a religious platform.

Whether voters agree with Jubilee's assessment is ultimately a political question for them.

But the statement makes clear that Jubilee intends to challenge the government's narrative aggressively as the country moves towards 2027.

The party is not merely disputing individual remarks.

It is challenging the credibility of the wider political story being told by the Kenya Kwanza administration.

That is a much bigger fight.

And it has only just begun.

THE POLITICAL ROAD TO 2027

With less than a year remaining before the next General Election, statements such as this one are likely to become increasingly common.

The language will probably become sharper.

The accusations will grow heavier.

The counter-accusations will follow.

But beneath the noise are questions that matter to ordinary Kenyans: the economy, taxation, jobs, public services, the cost of living, governance, accountability and the direction of the country.

Those issues will ultimately carry more weight than any single press statement.

For now, however, Jubilee has made its position clear.

It sees the government's use of moral and religious language as inconsistent with what it considers the administration's record.

The Kenya Kwanza side may reject that interpretation and defend its record.

That is the political contest unfolding before the country.

One side says Kenyans are being asked to forget.

The other will argue that the government should be judged on what it is doing now.

And somewhere between those competing narratives sits the Kenyan voter — watching, listening and making their own judgement.

Civic Lens Gazette will continue to follow the political debate and distinguish party claims from independently verifiable facts as the country moves towards the 2027 General Election.

For more stories, visit civiclensmediake.blogspot.com

Follow Civic Lens Gazette on Facebook: civiclens mediake Gazette

Email: civiclensmediake@gmail.com