The ongoing verbal sparring between Transport Cabinet Secretary Kipchumba Murkomen and Nandi Senator Samson Cherargei takes a new twist as Murkomen has escalated the matter by threatening legal action.
The feud, marked by a war of words, reached a new level as Murkomen, through his legal representatives at Ongoya and Wambola advocates, issued a letter dated November 29 demanding an apology from Cherargei over alleged defamation.
The letter, which gives Cherargei a seven-day ultimatum to tender an apology, states, “Our instructions are that we demand that within seven days from the date of this letter, accept liability for defamation to give way for negotiations and tender an unqualified apology in writing to our client through the same channels through which you published the offending words.”
The demand further warns Cherargei that failure to comply within the specified time frame will result in legal action without further reference, with Murkomen reserving the right to pursue costs and other incidental expenses associated with such proceedings.
The crux of the matter lies in the words used by Senator Cherargei during a press conference on November 24.
Murkomen alleges that the senator’s statements were interpreted to mean that he is corrupt, lacks integrity, is unpatriotic, and has betrayed the electorate. According to Murkomen’s legal team, these words, in their natural and ordinary meaning, suggest that their client committed a crime by receiving a bribe, is unfit to hold office, and has covered up wrongdoing by seeking the protection of parliament.
The roots of this dispute trace back to Murkomen’s visit to China, where he engaged with contractors to secure financing for key projects in Kenya. Cherargei, during the press conference, made accusations against Murkomen, asserting that the Cabinet Secretary had been abusing him during public events. The senator’s remarks highlighted the contentious issue of road construction and maintenance.
Murkomen’s legal representatives argue that the senator’s words are false, maliciously published without evidence, and aimed at tarnishing Murkomen’s reputation. The demand for an apology and the threat of legal action add a new dimension to the already heated exchange between the two political figures.
As the seven-day ultimatum ticks away, the public awaits the next move in this legal and political tussle. The evolving narrative underscores the intersection of personal reputation, political rivalry, and the use of legal recourse in addressing disputes within the public sphere. The outcome of this conflict could have broader implications for the political landscape, setting a precedent for how public figures handle accusations and disagreements in the future.
