Daniel Toroitich arap Moi ruled Kenya from 1978 to 2002, a near quarter-century during which he became both a constant presence and a defining force in the country’s political life.
He inherited a nation still shaped by the paternal authority of Jomo Kenyatta and refashioned it into a system that bore his own imprint: centralized, personal, and highly dependent on loyalty. The Nyayo philosophy—“following in the footsteps”—was publicly framed as continuity and peace; privately, it became a language of discipline, obedience, and reward.Around the presidency, a constellation of confidants emerged: cabinet ministers who translated presidential instincts into policy, intelligence chiefs who projected fear and order, business associates who oiled the machinery of patronage, and family members who both anchored and benefited from the system. This article examines that inner circle during the presidency itself, tracing the architecture of influence, the mechanisms of loyalty, the allegations of corruption that came to define the era, and the enduring impact on Kenyan society.
The political economy of the Moi state was not only a set of laws and institutions; it was a choreography of proximity. In a one-party environment for much of the period, the ruling party doubled as the state’s nervous system. Appointments to parastatals and ministries were less about policy specialization than about trust. The provincial administration, a colonial legacy that Moi understood intuitively, functioned as a capillary network channeling the president’s will outward and reporting intelligence inward.
In this arrangement, the inner circle mattered less as a publicly declared body and more as a shifting set of nodes: a vice president whose tenure ended or endured based on usefulness; a cabinet colleague charged with delivering a restive region; an intelligence chief who scented threats before they took shape; a business ally who understood that the flow of contracts was a political technology, not merely an economic activity.
This system produced stability and spectacle in equal measure. National days and presidential tours became rituals of presence, but beneath the choreography lay a reality of surveillance and patronage. Corruption allegations trailed the government in waves—from procurement controversies to the notorious Goldenberg affair—and yet the president maintained a grip sustained by the quiet, patient work of loyalists. To understand how power actually worked, one must meet the people who made it possible.
Nicholas Biwott sat at the center of this orbit for years, a minister whose portfolios—Energy, Commerce, and Foreign Affairs among them—placed him at crossroads where policy and procurement met. He was, to admirers, ruthlessly efficient and ferociously loyal; to critics, the archetype of backroom power. His name became shorthand for a style of governance in which development projects carried political freight and administrative decisions radiated from personal confidence rather than institutional process.
Allegations of profiteering, inflated contracts, and manipulation of state resources clung to his public career, although he consistently denied wrongdoing and was never convicted. What is undeniable is his strategic value to the presidency: he delivered results, cultivated a reputation for discretion, and projected the sense that he could be relied upon when stakes were high. When public morality collided with administrative necessity, Biwott embodied the inner circle’s calculus: preserve the center, manage the fallout, and keep the president’s options open.
George Saitoti offered a contrasting profile: a mathematician by training, measured in tone, and outwardly technocratic. Rising from academia to Parliament and then to senior cabinet posts, he ultimately served as Vice President. As Finance Minister, he presided over an economy traversing difficult terrain—structural adjustment demands from international lenders, domestic pressure for subsidies and patronage, and a state still adapting to multiparty reintroduction in the 1990s.
The Goldenberg scandal, a byword for the excesses of that period, cast a long shadow over his career. He maintained his innocence and avoided conviction, but the controversy underscored how deeply the political and financial spheres had fused. Saitoti’s durability tells its own story: Moi valued loyal competence. Even under sustained public scrutiny, a steady hand who could navigate cabinet politics, donor pressures, and party demands remained indispensable.
Amos Wako, Attorney General from the early 1990s into the next decade, was the legal custodian of the system’s continuity. In a country wrestling with constitutional reform, judicial independence, and growing demands for accountability, the Attorney General’s office became a hinge between political expedience and legal form. Wako’s critics saw him as a shield for the powerful; his supporters argued he shepherded a fragile polity through turbulent waters without allowing institutions to fracture beyond repair. Either way, his tenure exemplified the inner circle’s reliance on law not always as a liberating force but as a technology of containment. Prosecutions that might have severed crucial political alliances stalled. Inquiries that threatened the broader architecture of patronage were carefully navigated. The result was a public square where legality and politics became difficult to disentangle.
Joseph Kamotho, as KANU’s Secretary General for a significant stretch, personified the party as the president wished it to appear: disciplined, articulate, and resolutely loyal. Kamotho’s gift was not merely rhetorical. He understood the party’s double function as a mobilizing vehicle and a gatekeeper. Candidate selection, internal hierarchies, and regional balancing fell under a political logic where dissent could be branded indiscipline. His stewardship reflected the party’s evolution from a dominant organization to a contested brand during multiparty politics, and it revealed an inner circle that was nimble in recalibrating strategies without surrendering the core commitment to centralized control.
Musalia Mudavadi emerged as a late-era stalwart, briefly serving as Vice President in 2002 when the administration sought to reconfigure alliances in a changing political marketplace. His appointment underscored a hallmark of the Moi method: deploy personnel decisions to signal inclusivity, reward loyalty, and sow uncertainty among rivals. Mudavadi’s youth and relative moderation presented a softer face of continuity just as the electorate was preparing for transition. He embodied the inner circle’s pragmatic streak, suggesting that loyalty could be rewarded even as the system itself prepared to outlast any specific configuration of actors.
Kipkalya Kones represented the kind of regional operator the system prized. A minister and political mobilizer from the Rift Valley, he translated national strategy into local arithmetic, ensuring that the president’s message was not only heard but also felt in constituencies that mattered. Kones’s significance lay less in any single policy act than in the daily labor of political maintenance: coordinating local elites, managing expectations around development projects, and neutralizing emergent opposition. Where national headlines celebrated or condemned the big decisions, figures like Kones kept the gears turning, stitching loyalty into the political fabric one district at a time.
William ole Ntimama, a formidable Maasai leader, added another dimension to the circle’s composition. Voluble and unapologetically combative, he fused ethnic mobilization with national calculation. His bracing speeches and hardline posture toward opponents reflected a politics in which identity and patronage were braided. For the presidency, Ntimama’s value was straightforward: he delivered a community’s votes, articulated a muscular defense of the center, and embodied the willingness to fight the public case when others preferred quiet corridors. If Biwott represented discretion and Kamotho discipline, Ntimama offered defiance as a public art.
Sally Kosgei, a diplomat and later Head of Public Service near the end of the Moi era, provided the administrative intelligence that kept state machinery aligned with presidential priorities. Trained, cosmopolitan, and adept at bureaucratic navigation, she was proof that the inner circle included technocrats who prized competence as much as loyalty. In statehouses and foreign capitals, Kosgei’s skill set signaled that the system understood the value of professionalized governance even as it maintained a highly personal command structure. Her presence complicated the caricature of a purely patronage-driven state by demonstrating how able administrators could flourish within it, provided they accepted its political grammar.
Simeon Nyachae, who served as Chief Secretary in the early years before later parting ways with the administration, illuminates another facet of the circle: proximity could sour. Nyachae was a consummate civil servant, revered for managerial rigor. His falling-out suggested two truths about the Moi presidency. The first was that disagreement at the center became personal quickly; the second, that once a relationship frayed, the system would reorganize without the dissenter and proceed as if nothing had happened. This mutability kept courtiers attentive. It also bred an atmosphere in which initiative was prized, but only when it harmonized with the president’s sensibilities.
Mark Too, a nominated MP and consummate go-between, thrived as the regime’s bridge-builder. His influence came not from a heavy public portfolio but from a talent for fixing problems before they metastasized. In a system alert to affronts and quick to reward results, Mark Too’s gift for discreetly aligning business interests, party priorities, and community expectations made him useful across multiple contexts. He epitomized the inner circle’s preference for operatives who could quietly extract a “yes” from complicated situations.
General Jackson Kimeu Mulinge, Kenya’s first full four-star general, anchored the presidency’s military confidence. A veteran officer with institutional memory stretching back to the Kenyatta era, he understood both the pride and the dangers of a politicized army. When the 1982 coup attempt erupted, his response was swift and decisive, restoring the state’s authority and cementing the military’s role as guardian of the status quo. Mulinge’s legacy within the inner circle rested on two pillars: unambiguous loyalty to civilian rule under Moi and a professional instinct to prevent the armed forces from becoming a revolving door of political ambition. He became the archetype of the trusted commander—one who read the president’s needs but articulated them to the ranks as a defense of national order rather than personal power.
General Mahmoud Mohamed, who led the recapture of strategic installations during the same 1982 crisis, embodied operational audacity. In the choreography of regime survival, it is not only loyalty that matters but also speed and clarity when chaos beckons. Mohamed’s actions during those hours did more than rescue a presidency; they communicated to would-be conspirators that the center possessed both the will and the capacity to absorb shocks. He later occupied senior command roles, and his presence in the upper echelons of the military became part of the regime’s insurance policy: a reminder that the uniformed guardians of the state were closely knit into the presidential circle.
James Kanyotu, the long-serving head of the Special Branch, presided over the architecture of surveillance that underpinned Moi’s political order. Unlike the generals, whose authority was ceremonial as much as operational, Kanyotu’s influence was felt in whispers, interrogations, and dossiers. He professionalized the intelligence service to anticipate threats from campus activists, trade unionists, rival politicians, and even within the military.
The omnipresence of informants, the swiftness with which meetings could be infiltrated, and the deftness with which potential alliances were preempted turned politics into a game of chess played under floodlights. Allegations later surfaced that Kanyotu had business entanglements connected to state scandals, underlining how information and wealth frequently intersected. Whether celebrated as the man who kept the republic intact or condemned as the architect of fear, his role in the circle is beyond dispute: he made uncertainty a tool of governance.
Hezekiah Oyugi, the powerful Permanent Secretary for Internal Security, translated intelligence into administrative action. If the Special Branch gathered the signals, Oyugi’s office determined how and where to apply pressure. Provincial commissioners, district officers, and police commanders understood that internal security was as much about calibrating visible force as about deploying invisible coercion. Oyugi’s tenure coincided with episodes that critics link to abuses—detentions, rough handling of dissent, and a political climate heavy with caution. To the inner circle, he was indispensable because he turned presidential concerns into operational directives quickly and with minimal bureaucratic drag.
Yusuf Haji, who served as a provincial commissioner and later moved into national security roles, represented the professional end of the regime’s administrative spectrum. Calm, soft-spoken, and effective, he managed delicate ethnic and regional balances that might otherwise have flared into open conflict. Haji’s career illuminates a central paradox of the Moi state: a system often criticized for its heavy hand was sustained in part by administrators who believed they were preventing chaos. Their loyalty to the center was framed not only as personal fidelity but also as a conviction that a strong hand kept the country intact.
Personal protection operated as a theater of intimacy and power. Corporal Leonard Yator—universally nicknamed “Chomber”—rode beside Moi for decades, the bald silhouette visible in countless photographs and convoys. His loyalty was literal, measured not in policy wins but in the unbroken choreography of daily security. The president’s security detail became part of the mythology of the office: precise, omnipresent, and symbolically reassuring. In a nation where rumors traveled faster than press releases, the unbroken presence of a watchful bodyguard quietly announced that nothing had changed, nothing had been breached, and the presidency remained firmly in command.
Joshua Kulei, once a civil servant and ultimately a tycoon, is a case study in how proximity to power could be converted into an empire of assets. As a private secretary and business confidant to the president, he sat at the juncture where state decisions met commercial opportunity. Over the years, his footprint appeared in logistics, agriculture, hospitality, and finance. Public debate has long circled around the boundary between legitimate business acumen and undue advantage.
Supporters cast him as an efficient steward who professionalized holdings and kept a complex financial ecosystem humming; critics argue that a political monopoly inevitably birthed commercial monopolies. Regardless of perspective, Kulei’s career demonstrates that the inner circle’s business wing did more than accumulate wealth—it sustained the patronage system by keeping resources moving toward those whose loyalty mattered.
Kamlesh Pattni became synonymous with Goldenberg, the export compensation scheme that metastasized into a national scandal. His relationship with the state underscores how procurement incentives, foreign exchange shortages, and political needs entangled to disastrous effect. The inner circle’s reliance on business intermediaries to solve fiscal and currency problems created pathways for abuse. Pattni’s trajectory—from flamboyant dealmaker to embattled public figure and later would-be political actor—traces the moral arc of the era. In the short term, the arrangement generated liquidity and networked loyalty; in the long term, it corroded public trust, depressed investment confidence, and saddled the economy with distortions that would take years to unwind. The larger lesson for Kenya’s political economy is stark: when the lines between policy instruments and patronage tools blur, the costs compound invisibly until a reckoning arrives.
Ketan Somaia, another high-profile businessman who mingled with power, illustrates the era’s internationalized opportunism. Operating across borders and sectors, he epitomized the jet-set dealmaker whose relationships were as valuable as his capital. Allegations and court cases later clouded his reputation, but during the Moi presidency he represented a class of intermediaries who channeled global finance into local arrangements. The state’s need for foreign currency, investment, and prestige projects created natural openings for charismatic entrepreneurs; the inner circle’s need for funders and fixers made such men fixtures in the corridors of power.
Naushad Merali, a savvy Kenyan industrialist, navigated the era’s privatizations and telecommunications deals with an eye for timing. Unlike more flamboyant counterparts, Merali cultivated a reputation for professionalism and played the long game, investing in enterprises that outlived political cycles. His proximity to decision-makers was a resource, but so was his discipline. As with others, critics questioned whether access translated into advantage. The broader policy lesson embedded in his career is the importance of transparent frameworks: where rules are clear and competition genuine, business leaders are celebrated for strategy; where the umpire appears partial, even legitimate wins are viewed with suspicion.
Deepak Kamani and the Anglo Leasing saga, which spilled into the post-Moi period but had roots in the previous procurement culture, remind us that administrative habits do not vanish with a handshake on inauguration day. The controversy around security-related contracts awarded to shadowy entities captured the degree to which procurement had become an extension of political engineering. While the timeline straddles administrations, the infrastructure of single-source awards, intermediaries, and opaque guarantees reflected patterns nourished in the Nyayo years. Business allies did not merely profit; they also became the institutional memory of how to move large sums rapidly through the pipes of state.
Gideon Moi, the youngest son, emerged during the later years of the presidency as both businessman and political heir. His presence at corporate boards and eventual leadership of the KANU party after 2002 symbolized continuity, not simply of a name but of a network. Supporters saw in him the discipline and poise of his father. Critics argued that his ascent epitomized the entanglement of public power and private fortune. Yet even critics concede a crucial point: the Moi name carried a gravitational pull in parts of the Rift Valley and national politics more broadly, and Gideon understood how to convert that recognition into influence without unnecessary spectacle.
Raymond Moi, another son who served in Parliament, offers a portrait of familial steadiness. He never courted the limelight as aggressively as other politicians, but, like many scions of powerful families, he anchored the local base that makes national projects possible. The endurance of the family’s political footprint, long after 2002, underlines how an inner circle can transcend an individual presidency and become a dynasty’s operating system.
Jonathan Moi, the rally driver, played largely in the private sphere, yet his public persona mattered. He represented the first family’s effort to project normalcy and even glamour: a son who excelled in sport, a family that looked like any other Kenyan clan celebrating the successes of its own. In a regime that often fought battles in the dark, such daylight images were part of the soft power of incumbency.
Philip Moi, who pursued a military career, carried the symbolism of service. The image of a president’s son in uniform reinforced the narrative that the family was woven into the nation’s institutions rather than merely perched atop them. It also served as a reminder that loyalty, in the Moi imagination, was not abstract; it was embodied in ranks, rituals, and the slow accumulation of disciplined habits.
Lena Moi, the estranged first lady for most of Moi’s presidency, rarely appeared in public life, yet her absence shaped the optics of the household. The presidency’s symbolic functions—hospitality, charity, ceremonial leadership—were recalibrated to fit a house without a traditional hostess. That adjustment, subtle but real, illustrates the degree to which Moi personalized power: official charity became presidential charity; ceremonial duties became opportunities to project the president’s singular presence rather than a family tableau.
Lee Njiru, Moi’s long-serving press secretary, was the narrative artisan of the presidency. He crafted statements, managed access, and projected the aura of a leader both paternal and firm. In a media landscape that grew progressively more competitive and assertive through the 1990s, Njiru’s steadiness helped maintain the presidency’s communicative discipline. The daily management of perception—the cadence of releases, the staging of tours, the choreography of interviews—was his craft, and in a regime where silence often spoke loudest, he knew when fewer words carried more power.
To understand Moi’s inner circle, one must appreciate the mechanics that made it durable. Loyalty was the foundational currency, but it was never merely sentimental. It was measured, audited, and reciprocated. A minister who delivered a delicate vote or neutralized a faction received more than thanks; he received budgets, projects, or the intangible but invaluable grace of presidential patience when storms gathered. A provincial commissioner who kept an unruly district quiet could expect a transfer to a more strategic posting or a gentle nod when advancing a protégée’s career. A businessman who mobilized liquidity in a crunch found doors open when opportunities appeared.
Control operated through multiple layers. The intelligence services monitored the rumor mill as carefully as they tracked organized opposition. The legal arm calibrated how far investigations could proceed without damaging the center. The party enforced discipline by filtering who entered the ballot and who remained in the cold. The security services reminded everyone that, while politics is negotiation, there were lines not to be crossed. The genius of the system was its redundancy: if one mechanism failed—say, a court ruled unexpectedly—the others compensated through administrative delay, party sanction, or simple exhaustion.
Reward and punishment, the twin levers of governance since time immemorial, were dispensed with a craftsman’s touch. Public demotions were rare; quiet sidelining was common. The president’s famed tours, with their sudden announcements of roads, schools, or appointments, were not only development theater. They were signals to ambitious men and women watching closely: loyalty yields fruit in season. The inner circle internalized this calculus. They learned to hear what the president did not say, to anticipate how a request would land, and to present decisions as if they had emerged naturally from the president’s own preferences.
The allegations of corruption that dogged the Moi years did not arise from a vacuum. The structure of the state itself—centralized, personality-driven, and reliant on a tight network—created incentives for rent-seeking. Procurement was a principal avenue: security-related contracts shielded by secrecy provisions, infrastructure deals brokered with minimal competition, and parastatal budgets that functioned like private tills. Export incentives, designed to promote foreign exchange earnings, were vulnerable to exploitation when auditing capacity was weak and political pressure high. In this environment, a small fraternity of businessmen became indispensable precisely because they understood how to navigate both bureaucratic complexity and political need.
The social impact was profound. Funds that could have expanded classrooms, stocked clinics, or upgraded water systems were frequently redirected toward politically useful projects or lost to inflated pricing. Public cynicism grew as ordinary citizens observed a narrowing channel of opportunity. When multiparty politics returned in the 1990s, the demand for change was not merely ideological; it was intensely practical. People wanted a state that spent as it promised and police who enforced the law without fear or favor. The inner circle’s failure—and it is fair to call it that—was less about any single scandal than about the normalization of an arrangement in which public office became a brokerage for private enrichment.
Yet the record is more complicated than a simple morality play. Some roads were built and still carry commerce; some schools erected in the spectacle of presidential tours continue to graduate students; some public servants within the same system labored honestly and delivered services despite the incentives pushing the other way. This paradox deepened the public’s ambivalence. Many Kenyans came to see the system as both supplier and predator, a machine that produced stability while siphoning trust.
The psychological architecture of Moi’s rule rested on two pillars: gratitude and apprehension. Gratitude was curated through favors remembered, small interventions that felt large in a local context, and a style of personal outreach that left recipients convinced the president knew and cared about their problems. Apprehension was cultivated through the quiet presence of security services, the occasional arrest that made headlines, and the knowledge that careers could stall without warning. The inner circle were stewards of both emotions. A district officer who reported a potentially troublesome rally felt part of the protective weave; a minister who received a late-night call with a presidential instruction felt chosen.
This blend produced a durable equilibrium. Critics sometimes underestimate how reassurance and stability matter in a society that has lived through colonial violence, regional strife, and economic shocks. The inner circle framed their work as guardianship. The tragedy is that the same instruments that protected order were too often turned inward against citizens whose only offense was to imagine an alternative. The national story that resulted is one of peace rehearsed and rights postponed, development promised and accountability deferred.
By the late 1990s, the system was showing strain. Younger voters had grown up under one president and were impatient with stagnation. Civil society had matured, the press had sharpened, and international partners had shifted from indulgence to conditionality. Inside the circle, calculations began to change. Political entrepreneurs who had once sworn fealty found reasons to hedge. Business allies quietly diversified relationships. Security chiefs, always pragmatic, planned for any outcome. The president’s decision not to seek another term set the stage for a competitive 2002 election that would end the KANU era.
And yet the network did not evaporate on inauguration day. Family members retained political office and influence. Business allies continued to command capital and maintain access. Senior administrators moved laterally into new roles or reinvented themselves as elder statesmen. The system’s muscle memory—how to negotiate, how to pace decision-making, how to deploy procedural thickets—remained embedded in institutions. In this afterlife of the inner circle, we see how power in Kenya is not a light switch but a dimmer: it brightens and dims across seasons, but the wiring takes longer to replace.
It is useful to return to several figures to distill their specific imprints on Kenyan society and politics.
Biwott’s legacy lies in the fusion of state power and economic ambition. He proved how a determined minister can move mountains for a president—and how those mountains can cast long shadows. Communities that benefited from projects under his watch still tell stories of roads and electrification; economists point to debt and opportunity costs. The duality is the legacy.
Saitoti left an imprint of technocratic seriousness amid political turbulence. Students remember reforms and school expansion; fiscal analysts remember a finance ministry balancing politics and arithmetic with mixed success. His tragic death later froze his image in public memory as a competent, sometimes enigmatic figure who navigated both suspicion and responsibility.
Wako’s mark is legal sediment. The precedents, decisions, and non-decisions of his era shaped how future administrations would test the boundaries of the law. The norm that politically sensitive cases often stall owes much to a culture set during his tenure, even as subsequent reforms have attempted to recalibrate the balance.
Mulinge and Mahmoud Mohamed bequeathed the lesson that militaries can be firmly subordinated to civilian authority without losing their operational bite. The absence of successful coups after 1982 is not accidental; it reflects a professional doctrine reinforced at the top and internalized across ranks.
Kanyotu left behind a security culture at once sophisticated and distrusted. His long shadow falls across the intelligence community’s modern attempts to rebrand as partners in security rather than wardens of dissent. Every success against crime and terror now must be measured against a public memory of surveillance as political.
Kulei and Pattni represent the spectrum of business entanglements with power. One built a broad portfolio and cultivated an image of managerial competence; the other embodied a scandal whose very name still provokes a wince. Together they remind us that economic development policy becomes unmoored when private profit and public interest are confused in the ideation stage rather than merely colliding at the implementation stage.
Gideon and Raymond Moi demonstrate how political capital can be inherited and repurposed. Their careers show that dynastic politics thrives where parties are weak, institutions are personalized, and the memory of a name carries transactional value. Whether one admires or resents this fact, it continues to influence coalition-building and electoral maps.
Njiru, the wordsmith at State House, shaped the language of deference and reassurance that defined official communication. In a country where rumor is a form of politics, the way the state speaks matters. His craft helped the presidency sound like a steady drum even when thunder gathered.
The inner circle’s deepest impact was not a single scandal or a single policy. It was the set of norms they embedded in public life. Patronage as default. Centralization as virtue. Law as choreography rather than command. These norms are stubborn precisely because they are learned through practice. A young civil servant who discovered that initiative could be punished learned to hide. A businessperson who saw that access trumped bidding learned to invest in relationships over competitiveness. A citizen who watched prominent cases stall learned to expect disappointment. This is how a political era etches itself into the civic imagination.
But the era also cultivated democratic appetites in inverse proportion. The very instruments that constrained speech spawned a generation of activists, lawyers, journalists, and clergy who insisted on voice. The national hunger for constitutional reform, which ultimately produced the 2010 Constitution, grew in soil tilled by frustration with the Nyayo system. The two truest legacies of Moi’s inner circle may therefore appear contradictory: they made a hyper-personal state normal, and they made a constitutional state necessary.
Daniel arap Moi’s presidency cannot be understood without the people who made it work. Ministers such as Nicholas Biwott and George Saitoti translated presidential priorities into policy and political strategy. Legal custodians like Amos Wako kept the formalities tidy even when the realities were messy. Generals like Jackson Mulinge and commanders like Mahmoud Mohamed ensured the state could withstand shocks. Spymasters like James Kanyotu cultivated a climate in which opponents second-guessed themselves.
Administrators like Hezekiah Oyugi and Yusuf Haji operationalized the center’s will. Business allies such as Joshua Kulei, Kamlesh Pattni, Ketan Somaia, Naushad Merali, and Deepak Kamani monetized opportunity and controversy alike. Family and household figures—Gideon and Raymond Moi, Jonathan and Philip, the often-invisible Lena, and the ever-present Lee Njiru—gave the system continuity, symbolism, and voice.
Their combined actions built a state that was at once resilient and brittle: resilient in its ability to survive storms, brittle in its tendency to crack under the pressure of accountability. They stabilized Moi’s rule but entrenched patterns of corruption and patronage that Kenya still labors to unlearn. And yet, by provoking demands for change, they also helped midwife a future in which citizens expect more. The long shadow of the inner circle falls across today’s institutions, but so does the long light of lessons learned. Kenya’s ongoing project is to keep widening that light—so that proximity is no longer the measure of power, and the circle that matters most is the public itself.
No comments:
Post a Comment