Lawyer Wahome Thuku has claimed that former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua may be receiving sensitive information from a source operating within government circles. He suggested that the alleged informer could be linked to a broader pattern of political leaks that has persisted across different administrations.
In his remarks, Thuku drew parallels with the period between 2020 and 2022 during former President Uhuru Kenyatta's administration. He argued that President William Ruto and some of his allies appeared to have access to confidential information from within State House during that time.
Thuku Links Claims to Earlier State House Leak Concerns
According to Thuku, Uhuru's supporters had previously complained about the circulation of sensitive information and called for changes within State House, including intelligence and support staff. He said he could not confirm whether such changes were ever carried out.
The lawyer further suggested that the person who allegedly supplied information to Ruto during that period could be the same individual now sharing details with both Raila Odinga and Gachagua.
Informers Rarely Stay Loyal to One Leader, Thuku Says
Thuku argued that informers usually do not remain loyal to a single political figure. Instead, he claimed they tend to share information with individuals they believe are willing to make the information public.
He said the key factor is often the likelihood that the leaked information will be published rather than personal loyalty to the recipient.
No Evidence Presented
Thuku did not provide evidence to support his claims, and neither State House nor Rigathi Gachagua had responded to the allegations at the time of publication.
His remarks have nonetheless added to ongoing public discussion about the sources of political leaks and the possibility that confidential government information may continue to circulate beyond official channels.
The comments have generated mixed reactions online, with some users describing the theory as plausible while others questioned the absence of concrete proof linking any government insider to the alleged leaks.
