Siaya Governor Accuses Senior ODM Officials of Secret Dealings with President Ruto
Nairobi, 7 May 2026
Governor James Orengo has named four prominent ODM leaders—including party chairperson Gladys Wanga and MP Junet Mohamed—of betraying the opposition by conducting private meetings with President Ruto at State House and his personal residence. Orengo claims these officials made critical party decisions whilst Raila Odinga’s body remained in India, suggesting Ruto is directly funding ODM activities despite the party being owed £8 billion by the government. The explosive allegations reveal deep fractures within Kenya’s main opposition party as it approaches crucial 2027 elections.
The Willing Sellers and the State House Connection
Speaking during an interview on Citizen TV’s JKLive programme, Orengo specifically identified ODM Chairperson Gladys Wanga, Suna East MP Junet Mohamed, Governor Simba Arati, and Mombasa Governor Abdulswamad Nassir as the officials he alleges have betrayed the party [1]. The Siaya Governor, who aligns with the Linda Mwananchi faction within ODM, accused these leaders of seeking approval from President Ruto before making key party decisions, effectively deepening internal tensions [1]. According to Orengo, these four officials convened a meeting to alter ODM’s leadership structure shortly after Raila Odinga’s death, whilst the former party leader’s body remained in India [1]. The Governor described this group as a “cabal of ODM officials” and suggested their willingness to collaborate with President Ruto indicated the party had been compromised [1].
Financial Backing and State House Meetings
Orengo directly accused President Ruto of being the “willing buyer” who is actively funding ODM activities, pointing to meetings held at State House and the President’s private residence in Kilgoris as evidence [1]. The Governor highlighted the contradiction of a party being funded by someone from outside its membership, stating that despite ODM being owed Ksh12 billion by the government, President Ruto is financing party meetings, including one held in Mombasa [1]. This arrangement allows ODM to hold meetings at State House with President Ruto presiding, according to Orengo’s allegations [1]. The financial relationship between the ruling party leader and the opposition has raised questions about ODM’s independence and ability to provide effective opposition to the Kenya Kwanza administration [1].
Legal Battle Over Party Leadership and Funding
The dispute over party leadership has intensified following Raila Odinga’s death, with Orengo declaring himself the de facto party leader due to what he terms a vacuum in leadership [1]. He defended this decision by citing extraordinary circumstances where “a cabal in State House chooses who the next leader of ODM is, a cabal that is presided over by a party that does not belong to ODM” [1]. Orengo insisted that ODM must adhere to its founding principles and constitutional requirements, which state that when a party leader dies, one of the three deputy party leaders should become interim leader until elections are held [3]. The Governor emphasised that his declaration was supported by attendees at mega rallies who called for him to lead the party out of confusion [1].
ODM’s Response and the Ksh350 Million Legal Dispute
The Orange Democratic Movement has fired back at Orengo over his claims regarding the political parties fund case, stating on 5 May 2026 that contrary to his assertions of personally initiating the litigation that secured the Ksh12 billion ruling, the case was filed following a resolution by the National Executive Committee [4][5]. ODM alleged that Orengo was initially brought on board to provide legal services on a pro bono basis but instead introduced Julie Soweto’s law firm, changing the arrangement to a contractual one [4][5]. After winning cases in the High Court in 2016 and Court of Appeal in 2018, Soweto’s firm was paid Ksh40 million, but the party now faces an ongoing legal dispute with claims exceeding Ksh350 million for legal representation [4][5]. The party questioned Orengo’s professional conduct, citing advocate-client confidentiality, and alleged that documentary evidence shows Orengo personally received some of the payments [5].