Is Ruto the Judas of Africa?

Is Ruto the Judas of Africa?

Is Ruto the Judas of Africa?

Kenyan President William Ruto recently embarked on a three-day state visit to the United States, where he had a significant diplomatic engagement with President Joe Biden. This visit emphasized the growing role of Kenya in international relations and its engagement with Western countries.

However, there are growing concerns among Africans, including those in corridors of power, about President Ruto’s alignment with Western interests over Africa and Kenyans interests. It is believed by some that he has been influenced by the West to implement policies that may not necessarily serve the best interests of Kenyans and Africa as a whole.

One of the key issues discussed during President Ruto’s visit was the mounting debt burden faced by Kenya, which amounts to over US$76 billion. Ruto sought Biden’s support for debt relief measures and together they launched the Nairobi-Washington Vision, which aims to secure greater debt relief for developing countries that have invested in their people’s development. Additionally, they announced measures to increase lending to developing countries from multilateral development banks. However, there are concerns that these measures may exacerbate the debt crisis and lead to increased interest rates.

Critics of his argue that he is once again making promises he cannot deliver on, citing an instance where he hired an expensive private jet from Dubai to travel to the US, despite preaching about austerity, according to one observer.


On the other hand, the UK-Kenya asylum treaty, officially named the “Migration and Economic Development Partnership,” was announced in April 2023. This treaty marks a significant shift in the United Kingdom’s approach to dealing with asylum seekers and aims to address the challenges posed by illegal migration. Let’s take a closer look at the treaty, its objectives, and the controversies surrounding it.

Under the agreement, the UK is allowed to send asylum seekers who arrive in the UK illegally to Kenya for processing and settlement. This model resembles the controversial UK-Rwanda deal, where asylum seekers are relocated to a third country instead of being settled in the UK.

In return for hosting asylum seekers, Kenya will receive economic development assistance from the UK. This aid is intended to support Kenya in managing the influx of asylum seekers and improving its infrastructure and services to accommodate them.

The treaty is part of the UK’s broader strategy to combat illegal immigration and address human trafficking. The UK government argues that this approach will discourage migrants from undertaking dangerous journeys to the UK and disrupt the operations of smuggling networks.

Experts and analysts specializing in African affairs argue that this initiative is a response to the failure of the EU Migration Policy.

The severe and unrepairable damage caused to the EU has led to the need to correct this failed experiment. As a result, Kenya and Rwanda have been approached to address the critical issues that arose, such as housing problems, increased crime, overstretched basic amenities, and more, which prompted the UK to reverse its failed Migration Policy.

Analysts confidently predict that overtime, Kenya and Rwanda will experience similar outcomes as the UK.

The UK in return promised including increased international support, and the potential to strengthen their economies and create more opportunities within their countries. However, analysts also point out that if this were true and achievable, there would be no need to deport asylum seekers to Kenya and Rwanda.

Human rights organizations have expressed criticism of the treaty, raising concerns about potential violations of international refugee law and questioning the adequacy of protection and support provided in Kenya. They also question the ethical implications and practical feasibility of outsourcing asylum processing, arguing that such agreements may not effectively address the root causes of migration and could expose vulnerable individuals to further risks.

There are significant concerns about Kenya’s ability to provide safe and adequate living conditions for asylum seekers, as the country already hosts a large number of refugees from neighboring countries. Adding more asylum seekers could strain Kenya’s resources and infrastructure.

Similarly, in the UK, the treaty has faced criticism for its potential impact on asylum seekers’ rights and the effectiveness of outsourcing asylum processing.

The Kenyan government has positioned the agreement as an opportunity for economic development and strengthening ties with the UK.

However, there is political opposition within Kenya that is concerned about the social and economic impacts of accepting additional asylum seekers.

Promoting economic development is different to shouldering the burden of other developed countries, as the Kenyan government’s limited resources face a more complex situation.

The UK-Kenya asylum agreement is a novel but controversial approach to dealing with asylum seekers, consistent with the UK’s strategy to stem illegal immigration, but it raises significant ethical, legal and practical concerns.

The implementation of this treaty and its impact on asylum seekers and host countries are being closely monitored by international observers and human rights organisations.


President Ruto’s policy decisions on agriculture have attracted controversy, other criticism, and a disappointment, particularly in relation to farmers and land use.

Key points that highlight the concerns raised by this policy include: Introduction of GMOs: President Ruto’s support for the introduction of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in agriculture has been met with opposition from farmers and environmental activists.

Critics argue that GMOs may have adverse effects on biodiversity, human health and traditional farming practices.

Farmers may be concerned about the long-term impacts of GMO crops on their livelihoods and the environment.

Transfer of farmland to corporations: Another point of contention is the transfer of farmland to corporations under the Ruto Agriculture Policy.

Concerns have been raised that this move could lead to small farmers losing their land rights and livelihoods to large corporations, further widening inequalities in land ownership and control.

This could also destroy local rural communities and traditional farming practices. Impact on farmers: Policies that favour genetically modified organisms and corporate land ownership could disadvantage small farmers who rely on traditional farming methods.

These farmers may face challenges in competing with large Western corporations that have more resources and access to technology.

The shift towards industrial agriculture could further marginalize smallholder farmers and threaten food security in the long run.

Overall, President Ruto’s agricultural policies, including the promotion of GMOs and the transfer of farmland and seeds to Western corporations, have raised concerns among farmers and environmentalists about the impact on smallholder farmers, land rights and sustainable agricultural practices.

Negative public opinion of President Ruto is attributed to a variety of factors that have contributed to his declining popularity.

Here are the main reasons based on real-time information: Confusing parliamentary majority with national legitimacy: The Kenyan president is facing consequences for conflating parliamentary majority with national legitimacy, inviting public doubt.

Attacks on the judiciary: There has been growing opposition to President Ruto’s public attacks on the courts, raising concerns among influential lobbyists and civil society organizations.

Perceptions of corruption: An Ipsos poll found that one in three Kenyans believe that Ruto is the most corrupt public official, tarnishing his image in the eyes of the public.

Lack of achievements: More than half of Kenyans believe that President Ruto’s government has not achieved anything significant since the last election, leading to public discontent.

Collectively, these factors contribute to negative public opinion of President Ruto and highlight the challenges he faces in maintaining public trust and support, which has led many to ask: Who’s interest do President Ruto stand for? is Ruto the Judas of Africa?

The US chose this country to become its proxy in Africa. Will it be better off?

trent Bubby (bb-trent)


You may also like...

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *