ADVERT 
ADVERTWhat began as a chaotic political rally in Homa Bay on Sunday, August 16, has now evolved into an even more disturbing contest over who planned, financed and unleashed the goons who turned a political gathering into a scene of violence.
Homa Bay Town MP Peter Kaluma has dramatically shifted the narrative, accusing Siaya Governor James Aggrey Bob Orengo and Embakasi East MP Babu Owino of sponsoring goons who allegedly descended on Homa Bay during the Linda Mwananchi rally.
Kaluma claims some of those involved were known criminals, including individuals wanted in connection with serious offences such as murder, and alleges that they had been ferried into Homa Bay as early as a week before the rally.
If substantiated, the claim would fundamentally alter the understanding of what happened on August 16. It would suggest that the violence was not simply spontaneous confrontation between rival political camps, but potentially a planned operation involving the mobilisation of criminal elements.
But Kaluma’s allegation immediately raises another uncomfortable question: if he knew, as he now claims, that known criminals had been brought into Homa Bay ahead of a politically sensitive rally, why did he not share that intelligence with the police or other security agencies in time?
ADVERTThat question does not, by itself, disprove his allegations. Nor does it establish that he possessed actionable intelligence before the violence erupted. But if his claim is based on information available to him before the rally, investigators will inevitably want to know what he knew, when he knew it and what action he took.
The timing of the allegation is particularly significant because it comes after a dramatic reversal of the political narrative.
Orengo and Owino have themselves pointed the finger in the opposite direction, accusing Kaluma and Homa Bay Governor Gladys Wanga of being behind the financing and mobilisation of the goons who caused the mayhem.
The competing accusations have effectively produced two entirely different versions of the same Sunday.
In Kaluma’s account, outsiders were allegedly brought into Homa Bay to cause trouble.
In the counter-narrative advanced by Orengo and Owino, the violence was allegedly sponsored by local political interests opposed to the Linda Mwananchi campaign.
Somebody is therefore telling the truth.
But until investigators establish the facts, neither version should be elevated from allegation to fact.
That distinction is critical.
The violence itself is not in dispute.
The National Police Service has said it arrested 37 suspected gang members following the disturbances and recovered crude weapons, including machetes, knives, metal rods, ropes, rungus and batons. Police have also indicated that their investigations extend beyond those found on the streets to possible organisers, facilitators and financiers.
That could prove to be the most important development in the entire saga.
Because if the Homa Bay violence was organised, the people who wielded weapons may not be the people who conceived or financed the operation.
The real investigation must therefore move beyond the foot soldiers.
Who brought them to Homa Bay?
Who paid for their transport?
Where did they sleep?
Who financed their meals and allowances?
Who supplied the weapons?
Who communicated with them before and during the rally?
Who gave them instructions?
And, crucially, is there a financial or communications trail linking them to political actors?
These are questions that cannot be answered through political speeches or social-media accusations.
They require painstaking police work.
The security agencies had, in fact, been put on notice before the rally.
The National Police Service had cautioned politicians and other actors against inflammatory rhetoric amid heightened tension surrounding the Linda Mwananchi visit. Security concerns had already been publicly raised before the event, while police had arrested two youths and seized five pangas from individuals reportedly travelling towards Homa Bay.
The question that follows is therefore uncomfortable: how did a rally that was already known to be politically sensitive and security-prone descend into such extensive violence despite the advance warnings?
The consequences were severe.
Police have reported damage to several police vehicles and civilian cars, injuries to officers and attacks on journalists. One police officer died after a police vehicle lost control during the disturbances.
This was therefore not merely another political confrontation.
It was a serious public-order breakdown.
And that raises questions not only about politicians but also about the preparedness and conduct of security agencies.
If intelligence existed about suspected criminals being moved into the town, why were they not intercepted?
If security agencies knew particular individuals posed a threat, why were they allowed to participate in the rally?
If political leaders had credible intelligence about an impending attack, why was that information not formally shared with law enforcement?
And if the violence was actually sponsored by political actors, why did the state fail to identify the financiers before the trouble erupted?
These questions deserve answers independent of political loyalties.
The case of Oliver Jaoko, popularly known as “Olivetti”, illustrates the danger of allowing political narratives to overtake evidence. Police identified him as a person of interest in the violence, after which Orengo and Owino presented him to the Directorate of Criminal Investigations while insisting that he was innocent.
That matter should be resolved by evidence, not political allegiance.
If Jaoko participated in the violence, investigators should establish it.
If he did not, he should be cleared.
The same standard must apply to every person named by politicians, whether they are supporters, opponents or prominent elected leaders.
Kaluma’s own conduct before the rally is also likely to come under scrutiny.
His warnings against the Linda Mwananchi team and the increasingly charged rhetoric surrounding its visit formed part of the political environment in which the violence occurred.
That does not make him responsible for the chaos.
But it makes his words and actions before the rally relevant to understanding how tensions escalated.
The same principle applies to every political actor who spoke, mobilised supporters or issued warnings before the violence.
What did they say?
What did they know?
What did they do?
And what happened afterwards?
Those are the questions of serious journalism and serious investigation.
The National Cohesion and Integration Commission has now entered the picture, summoning Kaluma to appear before it this morning, Wednesday, August 19, to record a statement over inflammatory utterances attributed to him ahead of the Linda Mwananchi rally.
The summons provides an opportunity for the law to take over from political theatre.
Kaluma should be given a fair opportunity to explain his remarks, while the NCIC must exercise its mandate impartially and without political influence.
But the NCIC proceedings should not become a substitute for the wider criminal investigation into the violence.
The two processes are different.
One concerns potentially inflammatory political speech.
The other concerns violence, destruction of property, injuries, alleged organised criminal activity and the possible financing of goons.
The latter requires investigators to follow the evidence wherever it leads.
That includes Kaluma.
It includes Wanga.
It includes Orengo.
It includes Owino.
It includes every other politician, organiser, financier or individual against whom credible evidence may emerge.
Nobody should be presumed guilty because a rival politician has named them.
But nobody should be shielded because they occupy political office.
Homa Bay therefore presents investigators with a simple principle: follow the money, follow the phones and follow the people.
Reconstruct what happened not merely on August 16, but during the days leading up to it.
Establish who entered Homa Bay, when they arrived, where they came from and who they met.
Examine CCTV footage, mobile-phone data, vehicle movements, financial transactions and eyewitness accounts.
Establish whether the alleged criminals were actually ferried into the town.
If they were, establish who organised it.
If money changed hands, establish who provided it.
If weapons were supplied, establish their source.
And if politicians were involved, the evidence should say so—not the volume of their accusations.
The Homa Bay violence has exposed something deeply worrying about Kenya’s emerging political culture ahead of 2027: the growing ease with which political competition can slide into confrontation and, once violence occurs, responsibility becomes a game of accusation and counter-accusation.
Everybody becomes a victim.
Everybody blames somebody else.
And the public is left trying to determine where truth ends and political propaganda begins.
That cannot be allowed to become the template for the next election.
The August 16 violence has already left behind arrests, injuries, damaged property and the death of a police officer.
The country now deserves something more valuable than another political narrative.
It deserves the truth.
Kaluma’s claim that known criminals were ferried into Homa Bay a week before the rally must be investigated.
So must Orengo and Owino’s allegation that Kaluma and Wanga financed the goons.
If either side is telling the truth, the evidence should expose it.
If either side is lying, the evidence should expose that too.
Because the real scandal would not merely be that politicians sponsored violence.
It would be that people knew violence was coming, had the information needed to stop it, and chose to wait until after the blood had been spilled before telling the country about it.
