Why NCIC Is Now Turning Its Focus to Duale, Gachagua

Society expects leaders to speak with responsibility, particularly when their words have the potential to deepen political, ethnic or social divisions. That expectation is now at the centre of a fresh confrontation between the National Cohesion and Integration Commission (NCIC) and four prominent political figures.

Health Cabinet Secretary Aden Duale, Public Service CS Geoffrey Ruku, Mukurweini MP John Kaguchia and former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua have been summoned by the commission over remarks that are being investigated as possible hate speech.

NCIC Commissioner Jerusah Mwaathime said the four leaders will be required to record statements as the commission advances investigations into separate cases. Speaking on Citizen TV on Monday night, she said some of the leaders are expected to appear before the commission from next week.

“I need to bring to the attention of the country that we have forwarded the file of the former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua to the ODPP because when we came in we found he had many cases at the commission but for some reason they had not progressed up to the ODPP level,” she said.

Why Duale and other leaders are being summoned

The decision to summon the leaders places NCIC at the centre of another politically sensitive moment, with the commission seeking to establish whether remarks made by senior figures crossed the legal threshold for hate speech.

Duale, who serves as the Cabinet Secretary for Health, is among those whose case has reached the summons stage after NCIC said it had completed the relevant investigations into remarks attributed to him.

Mwaathime said the commission had also summoned Ruku and Kaguchia, with the leaders given 14 days to respond.

“We have reached a certain stage of our investigation where now we are ready, and we have summoned Hon Duale, we have summoned CS Ruku, and we have also summoned Kaguchia, Mukurweini Member of Parliament. We usually give them 14 days and most of them will be appearing before us next week,” she said.

The commission’s explanation highlights the amount of work that can go into investigating statements made in public, particularly when the evidence involves videos and recordings circulating on social media.

Rather than relying solely on the words contained in a clip, investigators must establish whether the material is authentic and determine how it was produced and distributed.

“Every investigation is different so some investigations might need a lot of digging, a lot of verification of clips, a lot of verification of data. We need to confirm, for example, if a clip is genuine, we need to confirm who is the originator, who recorded it and if it has been tampered with,” she said.

That process is particularly important in an era when political statements can spread across social media within minutes. A short video clip can be shared thousands of times before investigators have established its source, context or authenticity.

NCIC’s position is that investigations must therefore go beyond the immediate public reaction to a statement.

The commission has also sought to explain why some cases appear to move faster than others. Mwaathime dismissed suggestions that it selectively prioritises cases, saying the evidence available in each matter determines how quickly investigators can proceed.

She cited Kaguchia’s case as an example, saying the Directorate of Criminal Investigations had already undertaken investigations and established sufficient grounds for the matter to proceed.

“For others, we need to get all this information from all these agencies before we can move but for most of them we have moved, and from next week you will be able to see these activities unfold,” she said.

The explanation comes at a time when political rhetoric in Kenya remains highly charged, with leaders frequently using rallies, public meetings, television appearances and social media to communicate directly with their supporters.

For NCIC, the challenge is to enforce the law without appearing politically selective. For the leaders involved, the summons represent an opportunity to explain the context of their remarks and respond to the allegations before the commission.

NCIC draws the line on summons

Gachagua’s case adds another layer to the developing matter. According to Mwaathime, the commission inherited several cases involving the former Deputy President that had not progressed to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

She said the file had now been forwarded to the ODPP following investigations.

The move illustrates the different stages that cases can pass through before a decision on prosecution is made. It also shows why some investigations can remain active for extended periods before reaching a decisive stage.

For the four leaders now facing summons, however, the immediate issue is not whether they will be prosecuted but whether they will comply with the commission’s instructions and provide statements.

Mwaathime was unequivocal on the legal status of the summons.

“Now the law is very clear on that aspect. Summons issued by constitutional commissions and independent commissions, including NCIC, are supposed to be obeyed. They are the same as summons issued by the High Court,” she said.

The warning carries considerable weight because failure to honour the summons could escalate the matter from an administrative appearance before the commission to an arrest process.

Mwaathime said NCIC would not allow political status to become a reason for ignoring institutions established under the law.

“And so the legal effect is that when those summons are not honoured, then you issue warrants of arrest. Upon issuance of warrants of arrest, it means that the DCI, the police officers are basically supposed to arrest and bring them to the commission,” she said.

That position puts the focus firmly on the next stage of the investigations. How the four leaders respond to the summons could determine whether the matters are resolved through statements and further inquiries or develop into more serious legal proceedings.

The commission’s broader argument is that public office should come with greater responsibility, rather than greater immunity from scrutiny.

“We cannot exist in a nation whereby the institutions that have been created by law are being flouted. We cannot exist in a society where the leadership of a country, who are supposed to give direction, can stand and say we cannot honour summons.”

The statement captures the larger issue behind the latest NCIC action. The cases involving Duale, Ruku, Kaguchia and Gachagua are not only about individual remarks; they also test how Kenya’s institutions handle political speech at a time when public debate is increasingly polarised.

The outcome will be closely watched because it could establish an important precedent on how senior political figures respond when independent constitutional institutions demand answers over their public statements.

For NCIC, the priority is demonstrating that its mandate applies regardless of political rank. For the leaders summoned, the next step is to appear, provide their explanations and allow the investigative process to run its course.

Ultimately, the credibility of the process will depend on whether the law is applied consistently and fairly. In a politically charged environment, that may prove just as important as the investigations themselves.