The growing concern is whether statements made by the President at rallies, State House meetings and other public events represent final government decisions or whether they are positions that government ministries and agencies later have to interpret, qualify or adjust.
The question has gained prominence following several high-profile cases in which Ruto issued strong public instructions, only for Cabinet Secretaries, government officials or subsequent government statements to provide additional legal and technical explanations.
Recent disputes involving foreign traders and Tata Chemicals Magadi have particularly brought the issue of executive authority, investor confidence and policy predictability into focus.
The debate is therefore not simply about whether the President is right or wrong on individual issues. It is about how presidential authority is exercised and communicated within a constitutional system of government.
Foreign Traders Directive Creates Confusion
On September 2, Ruto told Micro, Small and Medium Enterprise traders at State House that foreign nationals should not compete with Kenyans in certain small-scale businesses, including hawking and small retail enterprises.
The President appeared to issue a direct order that the affected businesses should be closed from September 7.
The announcement immediately raised questions among foreign traders, businesses and neighbouring countries about who would be affected and how the directive would be enforced.
However, the administration later provided important clarifications.
Foreign Affairs Principal Secretary Korir Sing’Oei said reports suggesting that Ruto had ordered the closure of all small businesses operated by foreigners had misunderstood the President’s remarks.
He explained that foreigners who possessed the required documentation remained legally entitled to work and operate businesses in Kenya.
Trade Cabinet Secretary Lee Kinyanjui later added another distinction, noting that visa-free entry into Kenya did not automatically give a foreign national the right to work, trade or operate a business without the necessary permits and licences.
Although the clarification provided legal context, it also highlighted a challenge surrounding the original announcement — the President's political message had reached the public before the finer details of implementation were clearly established.
The directive even triggered concerns among some foreign nationals. Reports indicated that hundreds of Burundians sought travel documents from their embassy amid fears surrounding the enforcement exercise.
Former Chief Justice David Maraga also criticised the operation, arguing that a presidential directive could not replace legislation.
The controversy consequently grew beyond the question of foreign hawkers and became a broader discussion about whether presidential declarations are sufficiently supported by law and implemented through the proper institutions.
Tata Chemicals Dispute Raises Another Question
The dispute involving Tata Chemicals Magadi provides another example of the tension between presidential statements and government processes.
On September 3, Ruto took a strong position against the company, accusing it of extracting Kenya’s resources for decades without creating enough industrial value, employment opportunities and investment in Kajiado.
The President argued that the company had operated in the area for about a century without establishing sufficient factories or industries locally.
He said Kenya would seek another investor capable of establishing glass and chemical manufacturing facilities within the country.
His message appeared clear — Tata's continued presence in Magadi was no longer guaranteed.
However, the government process surrounding the company was more complicated.
Tata Chemicals Magadi’s mining and export operations had already been suspended on July 28 over alleged compliance concerns involving royalties, mineral beneficiation, export reporting, community development, local employment and environmental requirements.
Then, on September 8, the government established a high-level technical committee to examine the outstanding issues and determine the way forward.
The committee is co-chaired by Mining Principal Secretary Harry Kimtai and Tata Chemicals Magadi Chief Executive Officer Swaminathan Nagarajan.
The development highlighted the difference between political messaging and administrative procedure.
While Ruto's public remarks appeared to suggest that the company had effectively been ordered out, the subsequent formation of a technical committee showed that several issues still required assessment before a final course of action could be determined.
This raises a key question: Was the President announcing a final government decision, or was he communicating the administration's preferred outcome before the formal process had been completed?
The Growing Debate Over ‘Roadside’ Directives
The concern is not limited to the cases involving foreign traders and Tata Chemicals.
Questions have also been raised over the President's tendency to announce major projects and policy decisions during public rallies and other grassroots engagements.
Busia Senator Okiya Omtatah has previously criticised this approach, arguing that some presidential development announcements risk bypassing constitutional procedures involving budgeting and parliamentary oversight.
Other presidential announcements have also required clarification after creating uncertainty over their exact meaning.
In May, for example, COTU Secretary-General Francis Atwoli was forced to clarify President Ruto's Labour Day wage announcement after questions emerged over whether a proposed 12 per cent increase applied broadly or specifically to minimum-wage earners.
The issue is significant because presidential statements carry enormous weight.
When the President speaks at State House or from a public podium, Kenyans do not hear the remarks as those of an ordinary politician.
Government officials listen. Businesses listen.
Investors listen. Foreign governments listen.
Companies can make investment decisions based on what the President says, meaning a major announcement followed by a clarification from a Cabinet Secretary can create uncertainty even when the government eventually settles on a clear position.
Kenya Needs a Strong but Predictable Presidency
The central question is not whether Ruto should be decisive.
Kenya needs leadership capable of making firm decisions, protecting local businesses and demanding greater value from companies exploiting the country's natural resources.
The challenge is ensuring that such decisions are supported by clear laws, technical assessments, regulatory processes and properly defined implementation procedures.
The foreign-trader controversy demonstrated what can happen when a political announcement is made before all the legal and administrative details are clearly communicated.
The Tata Chemicals dispute presents another example, with a strong presidential position being followed by a technical process to determine the next course of action.
This has contributed to claims that the administration sometimes appears to operate in two different registers.
The President delivers the strong political message, while ministries, agencies and government officials later provide the legal and technical explanations.
That situation can leave the public wondering where the final decision actually lies.
The Bigger Test Ahead of 2027
With the 2027 General Election approaching, Ruto's style of political communication is likely to face increasing scrutiny.
The President's administration is seeking to promote economic transformation and attract investment, but businesses also need predictable rules and clear government policies.
Kenya has an interest in protecting local entrepreneurs from unfair competition while simultaneously attracting foreign capital, technology, employment opportunities and regional trade.
The solution is therefore not to prevent the President from issuing directives.
Instead, presidential decisions should be clearly defined, legally grounded and immediately implementable.
Whenever a major directive is announced, Kenyans should be able to understand what is changing, which law supports the decision, which institution will enforce it, when it takes effect and what protections exist for those affected.
Without such clarity, the country risks having two seemingly different versions of government — one speaking from the podium and another operating through official paperwork.
That is the bigger concern surrounding what critics have labelled the “roadside presidency.”
A strong President should ideally not require Cabinet Secretaries and government agencies to repeatedly explain what he meant.
And when a President publicly tells a company to “pack and go”, only for a technical committee to subsequently begin determining the way forward, an important question naturally follows:
Was the President announcing a final government policy, or was he announcing the government's preferred outcome before the formal process had been completed?
For Kenya, which is seeking to strengthen the rule of law, attract investment and establish itself as a major economic hub in the region, that distinction matters.
Tags
News