Tempers flared in the Kenyan Senate on November 18, 2025, when a routine session spiraled into a heated confrontation, culminating in the ejection of Kakamega Senator Boniface Khalwale from the chamber. The drama unfolded as lawmakers debated the government’s role in the welfare of Kenyan citizens abroad, but soon the discussion veered into a contentious dispute over the veracity of Khalwale’s claims about high-level intervention in the release of political activists from Uganda.
It all began when Senator Khalwale, known for his outspoken style, rose to question the government’s priorities. He drew a pointed comparison between the plight of Kenyan children reportedly stranded in foreign countries and the ordeal of two Kenyan political activists who were detained in Uganda for an extended period. In a statement that quickly set the chamber abuzz, Khalwale remarked, “The issue of the children who are out of the country is no different from the two Kenyan political activists who were locked up in Uganda for a long time. It disturbs me that it took the intervention of the former President, and not the current President.”
These remarks, as reported by K24 Digital and echoed by Gamalpha, immediately provoked Nandi Senator Samson Cherargei, who demanded that Khalwale substantiate his claims or withdraw them. Cherargei, clearly exasperated, insisted, “We must stick to the rules, Mr Speaker, when the Senator goes on record and says the former President intervened for the release of Kenyans, can he provide the evidence before this House because we don’t want hearsays from chang’aa drinking dens in Ikolomani coming to the Senate.” His pointed reference to unsubstantiated rumors underscored the seriousness with which the Senate treats its protocols.
Senate Speaker Amason Kingi, presiding over the session, quickly backed Cherargei’s challenge. Addressing Khalwale, Kingi ruled, “The point of order is: is that factual? If you cannot provide evidence, you proceed to withdraw and apologise.” The Speaker’s intervention was an attempt to restore order and ensure that parliamentary debate remained grounded in verifiable fact, not hearsay.
However, Khalwale was not about to back down. He countered that his statement did not require substantiation, suggesting that some matters were so well-known as to be considered obvious. “You should further advise the Senator of Nandi that he is thickets away from my experience in the Parliamentary palace… a member is not expected to substantiate the obvious,” Khalwale retorted, referencing previous parliamentary rulings. His refusal to comply only served to escalate the tension in the chamber.
As the back-and-forth intensified, Speaker Kingi repeatedly pressed Khalwale to comply with the Standing Orders, which require members to either substantiate their claims or withdraw them when challenged. Khalwale, however, attempted a different tack. Rather than engage further, he declared, “I started this journey of politics at the age of 22. We fought for this Constitution for so long that rather than respond to all things that have been said here, I choose to keep quiet.”
Kingi was having none of it. He swiftly rejected the option of silence, stating, “If you cannot substantiate, the other option is not to keep quiet; keeping quiet is not an option under our Standing Orders. If you cannot substantiate, you proceed to withdraw and apologise.” The Speaker’s insistence on adherence to procedure was clear—parliamentary debate must be accountable and transparent.
Instead of complying, Khalwale accused some lawmakers of using points of order as tools of intimidation. “This habit of giving the impression that this floor of the House offers an opportunity for intimidation of members during debate actually negates the freedom of speech,” he charged. He went further, addressing Cherargei directly: “If the Nandi Senator is uncomfortable with the factuality of what I am saying, let him express his discomfort and not hide in a point of order.”
The situation reached a breaking point. Speaker Kingi issued a final ultimatum, making it clear that Khalwale’s refusal to follow the rules would not be tolerated. “You are choosing to stay silent; therefore, it means you failed to substantiate, and the natural consequence will flow… I will rule you out of order and ask you to leave the chamber,” Kingi declared. With that, Khalwale was ordered out of the Senate chamber, bringing the fiery exchange to an abrupt end.
The underlying issue at the heart of the dispute—the fate of Kenyan activists detained in Uganda—remained a potent one. According to reporting from Gamalpha, Kenyan activists Bob Njagi and Nick Oyoo endured a harrowing 39-day ordeal in Uganda, reportedly held incommunicado by military special forces. Felix Wambua of the Free Kenya Movement, reflecting on their release, stated, “Without the intervention of former President Uhuru Kenyatta, I don’t know if we would have managed.” This assertion lent weight to Khalwale’s original claim, though it remained the subject of parliamentary contention due to the lack of direct evidence presented in the chamber.
The incident exposed deeper tensions within the Kenyan Senate about the boundaries of parliamentary privilege, the responsibilities of lawmakers to provide evidence for their statements, and the role of procedure in safeguarding both accountability and freedom of speech. Khalwale’s defiance—rooted in his long political career and his claim to have fought for constitutional freedoms—clashed head-on with the institutional insistence on order and substantiation.
Observers noted that the dispute also reflected broader anxieties about the government’s responsiveness to the needs of citizens abroad and the perception of political favoritism or inaction. Khalwale’s critique—that it was the former President, not the current administration, who intervened in the activists’ case—tapped into ongoing debates about the effectiveness and priorities of Kenya’s leadership. For some, the episode was a reminder of the importance of robust debate and the willingness of lawmakers to hold the executive to account, even at the risk of personal sanction. For others, it was a cautionary tale about the dangers of unverified claims and the need for discipline in public discourse.
As the Senate resumes its business, the echoes of this confrontation linger, serving as a vivid illustration of the challenges—and the passions—that animate Kenya’s democratic institutions. The ejection of Senator Khalwale may have restored order for the day, but the questions he raised, and the manner in which they were handled, are likely to fuel debate for some time to come.
