Wiper Blames ODM for Using Kalonzo as Scapegoat in Raila Health Row

Raila Odinga’s absence from recent public events has triggered a dispute between the Orange Democratic Movement (ODM) and the Wiper Democratic Movement, with both parties issuing sharp statements over the weekend.

The row began after ODM accused a group of opposition leaders, including Kalonzo Musyoka, Eugene Wamalwa, and Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua, of spreading false information about Raila's health. In a statement from Raila's office, the party dismissed claims that the former Prime Minister had travelled to Europe for medical treatment, describing them as politically motivated fabrications. 

ODM further alleged that its rivals used AI-generated content and unverified reports to create public uncertainty. Wiper responded by rejecting the allegations as unfounded and misleading. In a statement issued on Sunday, Wiper Secretary General Shakila Aballa defended Kalonzo Musyoka, stressing his long-standing political relationship with Odinga and dismissing any suggestion of bad faith. 

She accused ODM of using Musyoka as a scapegoat to divert attention from internal party issues. Raila's absence comes at a time when ODM was preparing to mark its 20th anniversary, an event initially scheduled for mid-October in Mombasa. The celebration was postponed, with organisers citing plans to include more counties. However, the delay has prompted further scrutiny, especially after a headline in The Star asked, “Where Is Raila?”

ODM has maintained that Raila's travel is routine and unrelated to his health. The party stated that any serious medical issue would have been communicated to the public, as has happened in the past. However, the lack of specific information about his whereabouts has led to increased speculation and criticism from political opponents.

The disagreement has also revived tensions stemming from Raila's unsuccessful bid for the African Union Commission chairmanship. Wiper has dismissed claims that Kalonzo undermined the campaign, attributing the outcome to diplomatic challenges rather than internal betrayal.