A social media post by lawyer Wahome Thuku has stirred debate over how security agencies are handling opposition activities, with the advocate alleging that former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua and the Democracy for the Citizens Party (DCP) are being treated differently from other anti-government groups.
His remarks come at a time when political gatherings are becoming more frequent as coalitions position themselves for the next phase of national politics.
In the statement posted online, Thuku claimed that police interventions during rallies involving Gachagua or DCP follow a pattern that is not seen when other opposition figures take part in similar events.
He argued that leaders such as Kalonzo Musyoka, Martha Karua, Wycliffe Wamalwa, and Justin Muturi appear to conduct meetings without facing forceful dispersal or interruptions.
According to Thuku, this variance suggests a strategy aimed at shaping perceptions within the opposition.
Thuku suggested that the alleged actions could influence how parties relate to one another, especially within formations that have historically struggled to maintain cohesion.
Kenya’s opposition blocs have often been characterised by shifting alliances, with mistrust and internal competition contributing to periodic fragmentation.
He argued that selective disruptions, if left unaddressed, risk deepening suspicion among parties that rely on coordinated mobilisation to counter the ruling coalition.
The lawyer further claimed that the perceived targeting may create the impression that DCP occupies a higher political tier than other opposition groups.
In his view, this could fuel rivalry as parties attempt to assert their standing within a broader movement already contending with ideological, regional, and organisational differences.
Thuku cautioned that such dynamics, if allowed to intensify, could weaken joint efforts expected in the run-up to future electoral contests.
Thuku also alleged that the pattern of crackdowns could lead DCP to view partners who do not encounter similar disruptions as less committed or less significant, potentially complicating negotiations or shared strategies.
He maintained that the use of teargas and police interference, which he said appeared directed mainly at DCP gatherings, could further entrench divisions.