More than 60 years after independence, lawyer and political activist Miguna Miguna says Kenya has yet to confront the historical and institutional injustices that have left some communities and regions behind.
Miguna renewed his criticism of the country’s political leadership on Tuesday, insisting that his focus on historical marginalisation should not be mistaken for support for any politician, political party or community.
In a post on X, the lawyer said he has spent years attacking leaders across the political divide over corruption, poor leadership and abuse of power.
“There is absolutely no one alive as critical of corruption, lethargy, incompetence and tyranny more than Miguna Miguna. I’ve consistently criticized all Kenyan so-called leaders for decades more than all of the Linda Bandits, United Thugs and UDA maniacs combined.”
He said his criticism has targeted both past and current leaders, including President William Ruto and former President Uhuru Kenyatta, as well as opposition and regional political leaders.
Miguna, however, said his criticism of individual leaders should be separated from his concerns over what he calls the long-running marginalisation of the Luo community.
He described the situation as the “systemic, deliberate and historical marginalization of the Luo Nation”, arguing that it began in 1964 and remains an issue today.
The lawyer also pushed back against criticism linked to his references to historical inequalities and recent political debates in Homa Bay.
“Speaking about documented historical marginalization has nothing to do with your childish, stupid and insensitive images of Homa Bay,” he said.
He also criticised the use of the term “Ayatollah” in reference to Homa Bay Governor Gladys Wanga.
Kenya’s regional inequalities have a history stretching back to the colonial period, when development was uneven and infrastructure and economic activity were largely concentrated in areas that supported the colonial economy.
Arid and peripheral areas received fewer public services, while the northern frontier was placed under special security arrangements and remained economically less developed.
These differences continued after independence in 1963. Sessional Paper No. 10 of 1965, which set out the country’s approach to African socialism and economic planning, placed emphasis on investment in areas seen as having the greatest ability to produce economic returns.
Studies have since linked that approach to uneven development, as investment was concentrated in regions with stronger agricultural potential.
The north and north-east were among the areas affected by long periods of limited investment in infrastructure and public services. The situation was also shaped by insecurity and emergency rule, with the Shifta War running from 1963 to 1967 and emergency rule in the north-east continuing until 1991.
Nyanza also faced long-standing development difficulties, with historical records pointing to challenges such as limited agricultural development, inadequate water supplies and labour migration.
The disparities, however, cannot be traced to one policy or one cause, with different economic, political and geographic factors shaping development across the country.
The 2010 Constitution introduced devolution in part to tackle some of these long-standing inequalities by moving resources and decision-making closer to communities.
However, the World Bank has noted that devolution alone would not quickly remove deep-rooted differences between counties.
Miguna said the existence of such inequalities means he will continue raising the issue despite criticism from those who disagree with his position.
“The systemic, deliberate and historical marginalization of the Luo Nation has gone on since 1964 and continues,” he maintained.
“I’ll continue exposing the systemic and institutional injustices in Kenya—come rain, come thunderstorm! Telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” He added.
His remarks add to the wider national debate over the roots of Kenya’s uneven development, with questions continuing over the role of historical government policies, political exclusion, unequal investment and wider economic and geographic factors.