Deputy President William Ruto on Sunday defended Kiambu Governor Ferdinand Waititu over Sh2.1 billion query by the Senate where the stated amount was found to have been allocated for functions under the State.
Speaking at All Saints Catholic Church in Komothai, Githunguri, Ruto told Waititu, who was present, not to be bothered by the raised audit queries raised as he was only supposed to be asked things that touch on Kiambu County.
“Do not get worried about the audit query on South Sudan and former Presidents since we will answer that. Just answer queries touching on Kiambu, which you will be asked by the residents and other people,” said Ruto.
He added: "People should stop asking Waititu a lot of questions that have no basis. He should be asked questions about Kiambu County. We have Cabinet Secretaries to answer queries touching on the national government. We should be asked about South Sudan, retired presidents and State House."
This is the second time the DP is defending a state officer over the alleged loss of public funds following a similar move during the peak of the dam scandal debate where Sh21 billion was alleged to have been lost.
Ruto's defence of Waititu will not go unnoticed and as such, consequences are bound to will be there either in the short-run or the long-run as we enumerate below:
1. Corruption defender
Ruto may once again be branded by critics as a corruption defender as it was in the case with the dams scandal.
His tendency to 'jump the drum' by strongly defending graft suspects even before the investigative agencies swing into action, may help stamp this notion.
2. Anger/excite Kiambu residents
The DP may also find himself facing the wrath of those Kiambu residents who may be convinced that the allegations of graft being laid against Waititu are true. This wrath may stream all the way to the ballot in 2022.
On the other hand, Ruto may excite the feelings of Waititu's staunch supporters who agree with the governor that he is a victim of a political witch-hunt.
3. Draw the wrath of investigative agencies
Though they may not say or show it in public, these State agencies may feel that the DP's behaviour to vindicate suspects of graft even before they can begin their work, is becoming way too intrusive and undermining their legal mandate.