Former Kakamega Senator Cleo Malala has escalated his criticism of the government and ODM leadership with explosive claims surrounding the handling of Raila Odinga’s final moments and the events that followed his death. Speaking publicly, Malala alleged that authorities deliberately mishandled security arrangements to fuel confusion and deny Kenyans the chance to view Raila’s body.
Malala claimed that if the government truly intended for the public to see Raila’s body at the airport, it would have been possible. Instead, he accused security agencies of intentionally allowing people to access the runway at Jomo Kenyatta International Airport, creating chaos that later justified restricting public access. He further alleged that security was insufficient not only at JKIA but also within Parliament, raising questions about planning and intent.
The former senator also referenced remarks made by Ruth Odinga during a public address, where she said she switched off the machine Raila was on. According to Malala, this statement suggested that she was present with Raila in India at the time of his death. He questioned why, if that was the case, she was later seen traveling back to India alongside Transport Cabinet Secretary Kipchumba Murkomen to collect Raila’s remains, implying inconsistencies in the official narrative.
Malala’s remarks go beyond criticism and veer into political theatre, as he linked the controversy to his upcoming play titled Who Killed Amollo. He suggested that the production would reveal deeper truths about the circumstances surrounding Raila’s death, framing it as both an artistic and political exposé.
The statements have sparked intense reactions across the political divide. Supporters argue that Malala is raising legitimate questions that deserve transparent answers, especially given Raila Odinga’s stature in Kenyan politics. Critics, however, accuse him of exploiting a sensitive national moment for political gain and publicity.
As emotions remain high, Malala’s comments have added another layer of controversy to an already tense political environment. Whether his claims lead to further scrutiny or remain part of heated political rhetoric, they have once again ignited debate over transparency, security, and truth in moments of national significance.
