A new report by The Standard has exposed a major contradiction in President William Ruto’s explanation for removing former Attorney General Justin Muturi. According to fresh court documents, Muturi was not fired as claimed by the President but resigned from his position voluntarily.
This directly challenges the President’s past remarks where he portrayed Muturi as incompetent and unfit for the job. In one of his public speeches, Ruto stated, “I gave Muturi a job to be the Attorney General. He told me… he would not be able to do it. After some time, I saw for sure he was not able to do the job… so I saw it good to remove him.”
This version painted a picture of a President who took action to improve his Cabinet by removing underperforming officials. But the court records now tell a different story.
The Standard reports that the official legal filings from the government clearly state Muturi’s exit was through resignation. This not only contradicts Ruto’s narrative but also puts into question the honesty of his public statements.
It raises concerns about whether the President deliberately misled the country or whether there are other hidden motives behind his public remarks. Muturi himself, while appearing before the National Assembly’s Committee on Appointments as a Cabinet Secretary nominee, confirmed that he stepped down willingly.
He said, “It is true that I resigned.” He went on to explain that there was some internal discomfort within government circles and that he found it more respectful to resign and allow the President space to reorganize his Cabinet. This clear statement by Muturi once again clashes with Ruto’s claims and shows that the President might have misrepresented the facts.
Political analysts now believe that the President’s version could have been crafted to manage political optics. By claiming he fired Muturi for incompetence, Ruto may have wanted to appear decisive and firm. But this new information could damage the credibility of his public communication, making it harder for Kenyans to trust his future statements.
Others believe that the move may have been a way to contain internal power struggles within the administration without admitting to internal disagreements. The court revelations now open the door to wider discussions about how the government handles Cabinet reshuffles and whether leaders are truly honest about why changes are made.
What remains clear is that the truth about Muturi’s departure had been hidden behind political messaging. The contradiction between official legal documents and the President’s narrative is too hard to ignore.
