Nairobi Senator Edwin Sifuna has demanded the immediate restoration of security officers assigned to Trans Nzoia Governor George Natembeya, accusing the government of using the withdrawal to punish and intimidate leaders critical of its administration.
Sifuna said the decision exposed Natembeya to potential danger and amounted to an abuse of power, insisting that the protection of elected leaders should not be used as a political tool.
In a statement on Thursday, the senator condemned the move, arguing that Natembeya was being targeted for speaking out against the government on behalf of the public.
“This cowardly act is a clear attempt to intimidate, silence, and endanger a duly elected leader who has fearlessly spoken truth to power on behalf of the people,” Sifuna said.
He maintained that the security of a sitting governor should not depend on the government's willingness to provide protection, saying the matter was both a constitutional concern and a question of national security.
“The security of a Governor is not a privilege granted by the State, it is a constitutional right and a matter of national security. Withdrawing it is reckless, vindictive, and an abuse of power,” he said.
Sifuna also pledged to stand with Natembeya, warning that the withdrawal would not force the governor or his supporters to abandon their position.
“We will not be intimidated. We will not be silenced. We will not be cowed into submission,” he said.
He further argued that any threat against Natembeya extended beyond the individual governor, saying it raised concerns about democracy, devolution and the will of voters in Trans Nzoia and across the country.
“We stand firmly and ready with Governor Natembeya,” Sifuna said, calling for the “immediate and unconditional reinstatement” of the governor’s security detail.
The governor has separately asked Inspector-General of Police to explain why officers assigned to protect him have been withdrawn repeatedly, insisting that any changes to his security arrangements must follow the law.
In a statement issued on Thursday, October 15, Natembeya said the latest withdrawal was the second such incident. He cited Article 47 of the Constitution, which provides for lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair administrative action.
He called on the police chief to provide a formal explanation for the decision and clarify whether the required procedures had been followed before his security detail was withdrawn.
Natembeya also referred to a High Court ruling involving the withdrawal of security officers assigned to five governors. He argued that the decision in the case required such actions to be accompanied by written notice, an opportunity for those affected to be heard and written reasons explaining the decision.
The governor has maintained that he is not opposed to lawful reviews of security arrangements but insists that any such process must be handled professionally and objectively, without improper political influence.
Orengo Reports Another Security Withdrawal
The dispute has drawn attention from other opposition leaders who have also raised concerns over the removal of their security officers.
Siaya Governor James Orengo said on Thursday that his security detail had been withdrawn again, suggesting that the action was not an isolated incident.
“Today, the government withdrew my security for the nth time; I remain unbowed.”
The latest complaints have added to criticism from opposition figures over the withdrawal of security assigned to elected leaders, with questions being raised about the reasons behind the decisions and the procedures followed.
Interior Cabinet Secretary Kipchumba Murkomen has defended the withdrawal of Natembeya’s security, accusing the governor of associating with individuals he described as goons and planning violence.
Speaking in Elgeyo-Marakwet County during President William Ruto’s tour of the region, Murkomen said the government would not allow politicians to misuse public offices or state-provided security to support violent activities.
“We will not allow any politician to use government offices and government security to plan violence,” he said.
Murkomen’s remarks placed the security dispute within a wider disagreement over the use of state resources and the conduct of political leaders.
Natembeya, however, has maintained that he accepts lawful reviews of security arrangements but wants any decision affecting his protection to be based on clear procedures, objective reasons and respect for the Constitution.
The dispute has therefore centred on both the circumstances surrounding the withdrawal of the governor’s security and the legal requirements that should guide decisions affecting the protection of elected leaders.