Governors Natembeya and Orengo Lose Security Details, Murkomen Defends Withdrawals

On Thursday, October 15, 2026, the security details of Trans Nzoia Governor George Natembeya and Siaya Governor James Orengo were withdrawn, raising questions about the treatment of outspoken officials ahead of the 2027 general election.

Natembeya said his bodyguards were recalled at about 11 pm on Wednesday, a few hours after President William Ruto finished a tour of Trans Nzoia County, and that the decision was made without prior notice.

He called on Inspector-General of Police Douglas Kanja to provide a formal explanation of why the security was withdrawn and to confirm whether the applicable procedures had been followed.

Natembeya added that he is entitled to protection but that not every Kenyan receives security, and that he will manage as Kenyans have historically done.

Orengo reported that his security detail was removed again shortly after he attended the first-anniversary memorial for former Prime Minister Raila Odinga in Bondo, stating, “Today, the government withdrew my security for the nth time. I remain unbowed.”

Interior Cabinet Secretary Kipchumba Murkomen defended the withdrawal of Natembeya’s security, accusing the governor of associating with “goons” and planning violence.

Speaking in Elgeyo-Marakwet County during President Ruto’s tour, Murkomen said, “Political goonism must be finished,” and warned that no politician would be allowed to use government security to facilitate unlawful acts.

Natembeya cited Article 47 of the Constitution, which guarantees fair administrative action, together with Articles 238 and 244 that govern national security measures and police professionalism, and referred to a 2025 High Court ruling on the withdrawal of security for five governors.

The two withdrawals have sparked debate over whether the moves were based on legitimate security assessments or on political disagreement with vocal critics, a concern that intensifies as the 2027 election approaches.

Critics argue that the perception of intimidation could erode public confidence in security institutions, while the government maintains that the decisions aim to prevent misuse of police resources for political violence.