Dear Members of Parliament, I write to you not out of admiration or respect, but out of utter disbelief and disgust at your recent audacity to even suggest increasing the presidential term limit. This move is a glaring indication of how far removed you are from the struggles, hopes, and aspirations of the people you claim to represent. It is a betrayal of the Kenyan spirit, a spit in the face of every citizen fighting for a better tomorrow, and a mockery of the very principles of democracy. Do You Even Understand Your Role? You were elected to serve, not to entrench yourselves in power. The idea of increasing term limits is nothing short of a self-serving attempt to preserve your political lifelines, while millions of Kenyans continue to suffer under the weight of your ineptitude, greed, and gross mismanagement The purpose of term limits is to prevent exactly what you are trying to do: create a class of political elites who cling to power at the expense of the nation’s future. Where Is Your Shame? Kenyans are burdened by rising costs of living, unemployment, rampant corruption, and a failing economy. Yet, instead of addressing these real issues, you choose to focus on how you can hold onto power for longer. You seem more interested in feeding your egos and filling your pockets than solving the problems of the common mwananchi. Is this what leadership looks like to you? Is this how you want to be remembered? Your Priorities Are a National Embarrassment While Kenyans endure hunger, poor healthcare, and substandard education, your priorities lie in solidifying your stay in power. Have you no shame in parading your greed while hospitals lack medicine, schools collapse, and basic services remain a luxury? This isn’t leadership – it’s looting in broad daylight. A Legacy of Failure Do you even ask yourselves why term limits exist? They are there to stop power-hungry politicians like you from stagnating in office while delivering nothing. If you were truly doing your job – empowering citizens, building infrastructure, and creating opportunities – you wouldn't be so desperate to cling onto power. Your obsession with longevity in office is a clear admission of failure. If you were truly effective, you would have no need for extended terms, because your legacy would speak for itself. Kenya Deserves Better – and You Know It What Kenya needs is fresh leadership, new ideas, and the circulation of power. We need leaders who are bold enough to step down, not those who are too scared to let go. Increasing term limits will only deepen the rot in our political system and keep the same cycle of incompetence in place. The youth of this country, the backbone of our future, will be damned if you are allowed to cement yourselves in power at their expense. Your Time Is Up The era of political dinosaurs must come to an end. If you are incapable of understanding that leadership is a privilege, not a birthright, then you should resign immediately. Kenya will not be held hostage by a small group of self-serving politicians. We demand accountability, fresh ideas, and a future untainted by your corrosive influence. In conclusion, your attempt to increase term limits is a disgrace. It is a reflection of your detachment from reality and your lack of vision for this country. If you cared even a little about Kenya’s future, you would abandon this absurd pursuit and focus on what matters: lifting Kenyans from poverty, creating jobs, and eradicating corruption. But then again, maybe that’s asking too much from you. Sincerely, Team PIKI PONKI

We must begin by accepting that no election management body will ever be perfect. The constitutional question, however, is not whether IEBC can achieve perfection, but whether it can guarantee transparency, verifiability and public confidence in the electoral process. William Ruto’s presidency confronts a deeper question of regime legitimacy. The 2022 election was not merely contested over who won; it exposed a crisis of public confidence in the mechanisms through which electoral victory is established. For a significant section of the electorate, the process lacked the transparency necessary to establish an unbroken, verifiable chain between the votes cast at polling stations and the final presidential declaration. This is the distinction between legal legitimacy and sociological legitimacy. The Supreme Court’s validation of an electoral outcome settles its legal status within the constitutional order. It does not automatically extinguish public suspicion, restore institutional trust or persuade every citizen that their political will was faithfully translated into the declared result. A regime may therefore possess constitutional authority while continuing to grapple with a deficit of public confidence. That deficit cannot be resolved through presidential proclamations, political rhetoric or demands that citizens simply move on. It requires institutions capable of demonstrating, with documentary evidence and transparent procedures, how the will of the electorate became the declared outcome. The solution is not to search endlessly for a perfect IEBC. It is to construct an electoral architecture in which no individual, institution or tallying centre can arbitrarily alter the people's verdict; where polling-station results are publicly accessible, constituency-level aggregation is independently verifiable, and every material discrepancy can be traced and resolved under the law. Democracy is not sustained merely because a winner has been declared. It is sustained when citizens can independently verify why that person was declared the winner. That is the institutional challenge Kenya must confront before the next election.

The government borrows billions from Kenyan banks, pension funds and other domestic lenders, yet ordinary citizens are entitled to ask a fundamental question: where is the development, and who is benefiting from this debt? Domestic borrowing is not inherently wrong. What is indefensible is accumulating enormous obligations while taxpayers face heavier burdens, businesses struggle with expensive credit, and public resources are increasingly committed to servicing debt rather than improving lives. Every government bond is a promise that must eventually be honoured by taxpayers. Every shilling borrowed today creates an obligation for tomorrow. If the money is invested productively, it should leave behind infrastructure, jobs, stronger public services and an economy capable of generating sustainable growth. If it disappears into waste, inflated contracts or unproductive expenditure, Kenyans inherit the bill without receiving the value. A government cannot keep borrowing in the name of development while treating the evidence of development as an optional question. We need a comprehensive and transparent audit of domestic borrowing, disclosure of how the proceeds have been applied, and accountability for every shilling lost through waste, corruption or mismanagement. Kenyans deserve to know not just how much the government borrows, but what those loans finance, who benefits and what measurable returns they generate. Debt must be an instrument of economic transformation, not a permanent financing mechanism for an inefficient state. If the public carries the debt, the public has an undeniable right to demand the returns.

The problem with Kenya’s presidential elections is that we have allowed legacy politicians to turn a relatively straightforward constitutional process into an unnecessarily complicated national spectacle. Over time, we have created the impression that the election is ultimately decided at Bomas, yet the foundation of the people’s mandate is the vote cast, counted and recorded at the polling station. Bomas should never become more important than the polling station where the citizen actually casts their vote. The more we centralise public attention around a single national tallying centre, the more we risk making the entire election vulnerable to suspicion, political theatre and endless disputes over the final declaration. Presidential elections should not depend on what Kenyans are told at the end of a long national announcement. They should be verifiable from the moment the first ballot is counted. Article 86 of the Constitution already provides the foundation: votes must be counted and announced at polling stations, and results openly and accurately collated and announced by returning officers. In Maina Kiai v IEBC (2017), the High Court held that presidential results declared at constituency level were final for that constituency, subject to challenge through an election petition. The solution is to put the people at the centre of electoral transparency. Every polling-station result should be publicly documented. Media houses, political parties, election observers and citizens should independently record and publish the announced results. At constituency tallying centres, the media should provide live coverage of the collation and declaration process across all 290 constituencies. This is not about replacing IEBC or transferring its constitutional mandate to the media. It is about ensuring that no institution monopolises the information through which citizens establish what happened to their votes. The media should not merely wait for the winner to be announced at Bomas; it should help Kenyans follow the evidence from the polling station to the constituency tallying centre. When citizens can independently reconstruct the national outcome from publicly announced constituency results, the space for manipulation, misinformation and manufactured suspicion becomes smaller. The ultimate principle is simple: take the election back to the people by taking public scrutiny back to the source of the results. The ballot is cast at the polling station, the results are collated at the constituency level, and public confidence must be built at every stage not manufactured at the finish line.

When Kenyans came out in their numbers in 2024, they were not marching for tribal supremacy, ethnic recognition or the political ambitions of any particular community. They were standing up for the national interest, economic justice, accountable leadership and the transformation of a country whose promise had been diminished by the daily struggles of its own people. The Gen Z movement was a reminder that a nation is not built by the competition of tribes for proximity to power, but by the collective pursuit of dignity, opportunity and justice. A young person without a job suffers regardless of their ethnicity. A mother who cannot afford hospital bills does not find comfort in tribal arithmetic. A family struggling to put food on the table cannot eat political alliances. The tragedy of Kenyan politics is that our leaders often interpret national demands through the narrow lens of ethnic interests and political survival. When citizens demand economic reforms, they are not necessarily asking for a share of government positions; they are demanding a government that works for them. When they protest against taxation, corruption and the cost of living, they are asking a fundamental question: what is the purpose of political power if it cannot improve the lives of the people? History teaches us that a country cannot negotiate its way out of poverty by distributing positions among its political elites. Nor can national unity be built by assembling tribal kingpins around a table while the ordinary citizen remains outside the room. True unity emerges when citizens believe that the state belongs to them, that public resources serve the common good, and that opportunity is not reserved for those who know someone in power. The lesson of 2024 must not be lost in the shifting alliances of today. The courage displayed by young Kenyans challenged the old assumption that political loyalty must follow ethnic identity. It demonstrated that citizens can find common ground in shared economic hardship, constitutional rights and the desire for a better future. A nation is greater than the sum of its tribes, and the interests of its people are greater than the ambitions of its politicians. The ultimate measure of any political arrangement should therefore not be how many leaders secure positions, but how many lives are transformed. If an alliance delivers power to politicians but leaves citizens burdened by unemployment, unaffordable healthcare, crushing taxes and the rising cost of living, then we must honestly question whose interests that alliance serves. Kenya does not need another competition over who sits closest to the President. It needs a national project that puts people first, restores economic dignity and makes public office an instrument of service rather than a reward for political loyalty. The streets of 2024 carried a message that should outlive every coalition and every election: the people are not the property of political leaders, and their demands for economic freedom cannot be negotiated away in the corridors of power.

I said this sometimes back, and today my concerns remain relevant. Their political direction has shifted from the interests of the people to the pursuit of individual positions. Whether through political pressure or negotiated interests, the party’s original concerns risk being pushed aside. A merger cannot be measured by how many leaders get Cabinet appointments, government jobs or political favours. It must be measured by what ordinary Kenyans gain. What is the victory in securing positions while patients continue dying in hospitals because they cannot access affordable healthcare? What is the point of sharing power if the people who entrusted you with that power remain trapped in poverty, unemployment and a relentless cost-of-living crisis? Power is a means to transform people’s lives, not a reward for political elites. ODM was built on the struggle for democracy, justice and the dignity of ordinary Kenyans. That legacy cannot be reduced to negotiating positions at the table of power. The people must remain the purpose of politics, not the bargaining chips.

"We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light." Good morning, Team PIKI PONKI

The problem is not simply that the IEBC Chairperson declares the winner; it is whether the declaration is insulated from unilateral discretion and anchored in verifiable results from the 290 constituencies. Article 138(10) expressly assigns the declaration to the IEBC Chairperson. Media houses and political parties should independently collate results and project the winner, but they cannot constitutionally replace the Commission in making the official declaration without amending the constitutional framework. The Registrar of the Judiciary is equally not an alternative declaration authority under the current Constitution. The more fundamental safeguard is to ensure that constituency results are publicly announced, independently scrutinised and cannot be altered administratively after lawful declaration, except through the courts. As established in Maina Kiai, constituency declarations are final for their respective constituencies and can only be challenged through the electoral dispute-resolution process.

That is precisely why media coverage should not depend on IEBC livestreaming results for them. The media must independently deploy journalists to all 290 constituency tallying centres and exercise their constitutional freedom to gather and disseminate information. IEBC has a duty to facilitate transparency and public scrutiny, not frustrate it. We must build a system where electoral transparency is guaranteed by law, institutional safeguards and independent media oversight not the goodwill of the Commission.

If Kenya wants credible elections, we must stop confusing the transmission of results with the transparency of the electoral process. Section 39(1G) of the Elections Act, which provided for the live streaming of polling-station results to the national tallying centre, was declared unconstitutional. Yet the debate continues to focus on livestreaming numbers instead of examining the architecture through which election results are received, verified, collated and declared. My position is ; polling-station results should be electronically transmitted to constituency tallying centres, with original physical Forms 34A delivered for verification and collation. Media houses should deploy journalists across all 290 constituencies to scrutinise the process, compare transmitted records against physical forms, question discrepancies and broadcast results as constituency returning officers announce them. This approach reflects the constitutional architecture of presidential elections. Article 138(2) provides for presidential elections to be conducted in each constituency, while Article 86 establishes the principles of transparency, accuracy, verifiability and accountability that must govern the electoral process. The lesson from 2022 is that a digital portal, however sophisticated, cannot independently interrogate a returning officer, investigate conflicting records or explain discrepancies to the public. Technology facilitates transmission; independent scrutiny establishes public confidence. IEBC must provide secure, accessible and auditable transmission infrastructure. Media houses must invest in sustained coverage at the constituency level, where results are collated and declared. Kenyans must be able to follow the process from polling stations to constituency tallying centres and onward to national aggregation. Why should the country's electoral transparency revolve around Bomas when the electoral process begins at polling stations and passes through 290 constituencies? An election is not transparent merely because numbers appear on a screen; it is transparent when every result can be traced to its source, independently verified and publicly scrutinised.

The debate on election transparency must move beyond livestreaming numbers to the architecture of results verification and public scrutiny. I favour active media coverage at source. Journalists should be present at constituency tallying centres, observing the delivery of physical Forms 34A, verifying them against transmitted records and broadcasting results as they are collated and officially announced. The 2022 election and the subsequent controversy surrounding the uploading and transmission of polling-station results exposed the limitations of treating a digital portal as the ultimate guarantee of transparency. A portal can display figures, but it cannot independently interrogate discrepancies, question returning officers or explain inconsistencies to the public. That is the indispensable role of the media. IEBC should facilitate real-time transmission, but media houses must invest in constituency-level coverage across all 290 constituencies. Electoral transparency is not merely about numbers appearing on a screen; it is about independently witnessing, verifying and publicly scrutinising the process that produces those numbers.

Section 39(1G) of the Elections Act, which provided for the live streaming of polling station results to the national tallying centre, was declared unconstitutional. Yet we continue to miss the bigger point in the debate on electoral transparency. Polling station results should be electronically transmitted to constituency tallying centres, where the original physical result forms are delivered for verification and collation. The media should concentrate its cameras, live broadcasts and real-time reporting on these constituency centres, where constituency returning officers announce the results. This is consistent with the constitutional architecture under Article 138(2), which provides that a presidential election is conducted in each constituency, and Article 86(c), which requires constituency returning officers to announce the results from their respective constituencies. Why should the country’s electoral transparency revolve around Bomas when the results originate from 290 constituencies? The media should broadcast from the constituencies, IEBC’s transmission infrastructure should prioritise constituency-level transparency, and Kenyans should be able to follow the process where the results are actually announced. Bomas should not become the crime scene of electoral opacity. The national tallying centre should aggregate results, not monopolise public attention or become a substitute for transparency at the constituency level.

We keep missing the fundamental point in the debate on presidential election results transmission because we ignore Article 138(2) of the Constitution. The Constitution provides that the presidential election shall be conducted in each constituency. Read together with Article 86(c), which requires constituency returning officers to announce the results from their respective constituencies, the constitutional logic is clear: the constituency is the primary unit of presidential election administration and results declaration. This should determine how IEBC designs its entire results transmission architecture. The servers, electronic transmission infrastructure, live-streaming systems and media reporting should be organised around the 290 constituencies. Every constituency should be a visible, independently verifiable source of results, allowing Kenyans to follow the counting, verification and announcement of votes in real time, rather than depending on a centralised national tallying centre to tell them what happened across the country. The national tallying centre should not become the nerve centre upon which the credibility of the entire presidential election depends. Centralisation creates an unnecessary bottleneck, shifts public attention away from the actual points of declaration and risks turning a process that should be transparent at the constituency level into a spectacle dominated by events at the national centre. The Constitution does not require Kenya to organise its electoral transparency around a national tallying centre. It requires a system in which the integrity of the vote can be established at the point where the results are counted, verified and announced. IEBC should therefore prioritise constituency-level transmission, immediate public access to constituency results and independent media verification. The national centre should facilitate the aggregation of results, not become the substitute for transparency at the constituency level. The principle is simple: let Kenyans watch the election where it happens, verify the results where they are announced, and follow their transmission without having to trust a single centralised point. That is how technology should strengthen constitutional accountability, protect the sovereignty of the voter and restore public confidence in presidential elections.

Kenya’s economy has become a leaking bucket. The harder citizens work to fill it, the more their earnings disappear through taxes, rising food prices and the cost of survival. By the end of the month, millions have poured in their sweat but have little to show for it. We cannot keep asking people to run a marathon on an empty stomach and then blame them for failing to reach the finish line. Safina Party’s FIST Agenda seeks to change the rules of this economic game: ease the tax burden, restore purchasing power, unlock opportunities and ensure that hard work translates into dignity and prosperity. An economy should be a ladder that lifts people out of poverty, not a hamster wheel that keeps them running in circles while the cost of living races ahead.

"No matter how tall your grandfather was, you'll have to do your own growing" - Kaksingri Proverb Good morning Team Piki Ponki

Legacy politicians are uncomfortable with an empowered population because independent citizens cannot be manipulated with handouts, tribal slogans or political theatrics. They want you desperate enough to beg for what should be your right, grateful for crumbs while they feast on public resources. An empowered citizen demands accountability. An economically liberated citizen negotiates from a position of strength. And a politically conscious population refuses to worship leaders who treat public office as personal property. Their power depends on your desperation. Your liberation begins when you no longer have to beg.

Kenya kwanza will only deliver pain and suffering

Kenya did not overthrow colonial rule only to surrender its freedom to a new generation of political gatekeepers. Today’s new colonizers are legacy politicians who treat public office as family property, political alliances as private contracts, and the aspirations of millions as bargaining chips. They change the faces at the top but preserve the same system of exclusion, patronage and economic exploitation. True liberation is not replacing one political dynasty with another; it is dismantling the system that allows a few families to monopolise power while ordinary Kenyans remain poor.

Debt liberation. Fair taxation. Free education. Universal healthcare. An end to reckless government borrowing. These are not isolated promises. They are interconnected solutions to Kenya’s economic crisis. Safina Party’s FIST Agenda — Freedom, Integrity, Sovereignty and Transformation — offers a people-centred alternative that puts economic justice, dignity and national sovereignty before elite interests. Kenya needs an economic revolution, not another political arrangement to share power while citizens share poverty. The people must come first. Kenya must come first.

A salary may come at the end of the month, biashara income depends on daily sales, and casual workers earn only when work is available. But rent, food, transport and debt collectors do not wait for payday. The real economic crisis is not just how much Kenyans earn, but how little breathing room they have between one payment and the next. Economic policy that ignores cash-flow realities will continue to punish ordinary households, suffocate small businesses and deepen poverty. You cannot build a prosperous economy when millions of people are perpetually surviving from one financial emergency to the next.