Recent remarks by Public Service Cabinet Secretary Geoffrey Ruku have brought back to the surface an old but sensitive debate within Mt Kenya politics: the uneasy relationship between the eastern and western sides of the mountain.
By stating that Meru, Tharaka Nithi and Embu are ready to “go it alone”, and accusing Mt Kenya West of historically using and exploiting the East, Ruku touched a nerve that many politicians avoid but quietly acknowledge.
For decades, Mt Kenya has been presented as a united political bloc. During elections, leaders speak of unity, shared destiny and collective bargaining power. Yet beneath this public posture lies a long history of imbalance. Political power, economic influence and access to state authority have largely gravitated towards Mt Kenya West, especially Kiambu, Murang’a and Nyeri. Mt Kenya East has often played the role of loyal supporter, delivering votes but receiving limited influence in return.
A HISTORY OF EXCLUSION
This pattern can be traced back to the early years of independence. Under Jomo Kenyatta’s presidency, the centre of power was firmly anchored in Central Kenya West. While leaders from Embu and Meru were present in government, real authority rested elsewhere. Development and elite networks followed the same direction. Over time, a quiet sense of exclusion grew in the eastern counties, though it was rarely expressed openly for fear of being labelled divisive.
The formation of the GEMA alliance in the 1970s captured this contradiction. GEMA, which brought together Gikuyu, Embu and Meru communities, was presented as a cultural and political shield at a time of national uncertainty. Officially, it stood for unity and collective security. In reality, it entrenched Kikuyu dominance within Mt Kenya politics. Decision-making power reflected numbers and economic muscle, not equal partnership. For many in Mt Kenya East, GEMA symbolised unity in name but imbalance in practice.
The reaction of the Kamba community to GEMA offers an important historical lesson. Leaders in Ukambani rejected joining the GEMA framework and instead formed their own political and cultural unions. This was not a rejection of cooperation, but a refusal to be absorbed into a structure where they felt their interests would be secondary. The Kamba leadership understood early that political unity without equity weakens rather than strengthens a community.
CHANGING TIDES
Ruku’s remarks mirror this same thinking. His argument is not that Mt Kenya East should isolate itself, but that it should negotiate from a position of strength. By declaring loyalty to the current government and openly backing Deputy President Kithure Kindiki as a possible presidential candidate in 2032, Mt Kenya East is signalling that support must now translate into leadership, not just participation.
Recent political events have sharpened these feelings. The turbulence that followed the removal of Rigathi Gachagua exposed internal fractures within Mt Kenya West politics. To many in the East, it reinforced the view that confrontational politics can be costly, while quiet institutional loyalty offers a safer path to long-term influence. Kindiki’s rise within government has therefore become symbolic of a different political style and a new generational shift.
Historically, moments of succession have always tested Mt Kenya unity. After Kenyatta, during Moi’s rule, and later during Kibaki’s succession, the mountain’s cohesion weakened as leaders pursued individual survival and relevance. Each transition left Mt Kenya East asking the same question: what do we gain from unity once the votes are counted?
Ruku’s comments should therefore be read less as provocation and more as reflection. They speak to a long memory of unequal power-sharing and a growing determination by Mt Kenya East to chart its own future. As Kenya slowly turns its attention to post-Ruto succession politics, the divisions within the mountain may no longer be whispered. They are now being spoken aloud, grounded in history, experience and a demand for fair political inclusion.
