NAIROBI, Kenya — Nairobi Woman Representative Esther Muthoni Passaris has pushed back against criticism over her public declaration of “love” for President William Ruto, igniting a sharp exchange with consumer protection advocate Stephen Mutoro over political expression, authenticity, and loyalty in Kenya’s polarised public discourse.
In a strongly worded response shared on social media, Passaris dismissed questions about authorship and motive behind her remarks, insisting that neither her choice of words nor her sentiments required validation from critics.
“Does whoever wrote it change who the page owner is?” Passaris wrote, responding directly to Mutoro. “As a consultant on consumer protection, you more than anyone should appreciate the freedom of choice and expression. My declaration of love requires neither your permission, approval, nor consent.”
She went further, challenging traditional notions of political allegiance and exclusivity. “Lastly, love isn’t always exclusive, nor is it finite. In fact, I could even choose to love you too, just that I am not inspired to!” she added.
The exchange was triggered after Mutoro questioned the nature and intent of Passaris’ earlier message expressing affection for President Ruto.
In his post, Mutoro raised several pointed questions, including whether the statement was authored personally by Passaris or by an aide, and whether her “love” was directed at Ruto as an individual or merely as a sign of respect for the presidency.
“Is this really the best way to express that ‘love’?” Mutoro asked. He also introduced a politically charged comparison, asking whether Passaris would have expressed the same sentiments if opposition leader Raila Odinga — whom he referred to as the “late people’s President” — were still alive, a phrasing likely to provoke controversy given that Odinga is alive.
The spat reflects deeper fault lines within Kenya’s political class and civil society, particularly as politicians navigate public messaging in the age of social media, where personal sentiment, political branding, and official positions often blur.
Expressions of personal support for the President by elected leaders from diverse political backgrounds have increasingly attracted scrutiny, especially against the backdrop of economic pressures and growing public dissatisfaction.
Critics, however, see such declarations as excessive personalisation of power and a departure from issue-based politics. Mutoro’s intervention appeared to tap into broader concerns about political accountability, the role of advisers, and the authenticity of public communication by elected leaders.
The exchange also revived debate about freedom of expression and its limits in political life. While Passaris framed her remarks as a matter of personal liberty and choice, Mutoro’s questions underscored the expectation that public officials’ words carry symbolic weight and should be subjected to scrutiny.
As the online debate continues, the episode underscores how social media has become a central arena for political contestation in Kenya, where tone, wording, and perceived loyalty can quickly overshadow substantive policy discussions.
Whether Passaris’ remarks will have lasting political consequences remains unclear, but the exchange has once again highlighted the delicate balance between personal expression and public responsibility in Kenya’s democracy.
