By YOANA KIMWELE
The Linda Ruto Movement (LRM) has launched a scathing response to Wiper Party leader Kalonzo Musyoka’s 13-point agenda, dismissing it as inadequate and accusing the former Vice President of failing to provide clear solutions to Kenya’s economic challenges. In a statement signed by LRM National Chair M.P. Musyimi, the movement said the agenda does not sufficiently address the economy or the rising cost of living.
LRM strongly defended President William Ruto’s administration on Universal Health Coverage, arguing that Kalonzo should present a concrete alternative to the Social Health Authority (SHA) if he believes the current healthcare model is inadequate. The movement said the Ruto administration is pursuing Universal Health Coverage and challenged the opposition to provide a more practical and sustainable alternative.
On education, LRM questioned Kalonzo’s proposal for free quality education from ECD to university alongside bursaries and scholarships for deserving students. The movement argued that the former Vice President should provide a clear financing plan and explain how such an ambitious programme would be funded without placing additional pressure on the country’s public debt.
The movement also challenged Kalonzo on employment and living wages, arguing that his political record should be subjected to the same scrutiny he applies to the current administration. LRM pointed to Kalonzo’s past involvement in facilitating overseas employment opportunities and questioned his criticism of the Government’s efforts to secure jobs for Kenyans abroad.
On food security, LRM turned its focus to Kalonzo’s political backyard of Kitui, arguing that the county continues to experience food insecurity despite his decades in national politics. The movement challenged the Wiper leader to explain what he did during his years in government to strengthen agriculture, irrigation and food production in Kitui before promising similar solutions to the entire country.
The statement further criticised Kalonzo’s position on taxation, with LRM arguing that the Government must collect taxes legally due from wealthy individuals and businesses rather than rely excessively on borrowing. The movement also questioned Kalonzo’s record on constitutionalism and governance, citing his previous senior roles in Government and challenging him to explain what lessons he draws from his time in office.
On devolution, LRM accused Wiper-led counties of failing to demonstrate the principles of equitable resource distribution that Kalonzo now advocates nationally. The movement specifically mentioned Kitui, Machakos and Makueni, challenging the opposition leader to explain how his proposed administration would ensure that county resources reach ordinary citizens rather than what it described as politically connected elites.
The movement also attacked Kalonzo’s record on youth and women empowerment, questioning whether his political establishment has provided sufficient opportunities for young people and women. LRM challenged him to demonstrate greater inclusivity within Wiper before promising similar reforms at the national level.
On housing and social protection, LRM defended the Ruto administration’s Affordable Housing Programme and social safety-net initiatives. The movement argued that affordable housing had previously featured in the Big Four Agenda but was not fully implemented, while also citing the Government’s allocation of KSh43.1 billion for social protection and safety-net programmes, up from KSh41.4 billion in the previous financial year.
The strongest criticism was reserved for Kalonzo’s positions on corruption and national unity. LRM challenged him to support accountability wherever allegations of corruption arise and accused him of failing to take a firm position on what it described as tribal politics within the opposition. The movement concluded by challenging Kalonzo and other opposition leaders, including Senator Edwin Sifuna, to present Kenyans with a comprehensive, costed and implementable manifesto ahead of the 2027 General Election, insisting that voters should judge competing political formations on their records, policies and ability to deliver.
///
