By Kepher Otieno - Reporter
Kenya, 17 April 2026 - In a political climate increasingly growing intense, ODM party leader Dr Oburu Oginga Odinga has delivered a blistering rebuttal to claims that the Orange Democratic Movement (ODM) has withdrawn from negotiations with the United Democratic Alliance (UDA), dismissing the narrative as fiction masquerading as fact.
With pointed clarity, Oburu dismantled the very premise of the controversy. How, he demanded, could discussions collapse when none had formally commenced? The question was less rhetorical flourish than strategic demolition—an effort to recast the discourse and reassert ODM’s agency in a rapidly shifting political landscape.
Reports suggesting that ODM’s central committee had suspended engagement with UDA over perceived slights were, in Oburu’s telling, not merely premature but fundamentally misleading. What exists, he revealed, is not a breakdown of talks but a deeper contest over respect, recognition, and political parity.
Speaking in Kisumu, and flanked by a section of Nyanza clerics leaders, Dr Oburu’s message was unmistakable: ODM will not be diminished.
The party, he insisted, refuses to be treated as a peripheral actor or, worse still, a political relic.
His remarks carried the unmistakable cadence of a movement recalibrating its posture—less defensive, more declarative.
Particularly cutting was his rebuke of Senate Speaker Amason Kingi, whose recent comments had cast doubt on ODM’s vitality in the post-Raila era. Oburu’s response was both personal and strategic.
He reminded audiences of Kingi’s political origins within ODM, questioning his moral authority to pronounce its demise. The implication was clear: defectors may change allegiances, but they do not acquire the licence to write 'obituaries' for the institutions that once nurtured them.
Yet beyond the barbs lay a more consequential argument—one aimed at redefining ODM itself.
Oburu rejected the notion that the party’s fortunes are tethered to any single individual, including its most iconic figure.
More from Kenya
ODM, he asserted, is an ideological construct sustained by structures, not personalities. In a political culture often dominated by cults of leadership, this insistence on institutional continuity signals a deliberate and perhaps overdue repositioning.
This was not merely defensive rhetoric; it was a declaration of identity. ODM, in Oburu’s framing, is a party anchored in vision and mission, where collective interest supersedes individual ambition. Such language suggests an organisation keen to project resilience and coherence as it navigates succession anxieties and electoral recalibration.
On the contentious issue of zoning—long a fault line in coalition politics—Oburu struck a measured tone. He sought to quell rising tensions by framing zoning not as exclusion but as pragmatic coordination. Should ODM and UDA eventually enter into a pact, he argued, it would be strategically absurd for both to field candidates against each other in the same constituencies.
Nevertheless, he was careful to temper this logic with a reaffirmation of democratic competition. Aspirants, he warned, must not presume entitlement. There will be no “silver platter” candidacies; popularity must be earned in the crucible of campaigning. In opening the party’s nomination processes to all levels, ODM appears intent on balancing coalition discipline with internal democracy—a delicate equilibrium at the best of times.
Intriguingly, Oburu’s address was not confined to partisan combat. In a move that hints at a more sophisticated opposition posture, he offered qualified praise for President William Ruto’s decision to reduce VAT on fuel. The gesture, while modest, was acknowledged as a step in the right direction amid mounting economic pressures.
At the same time, Oburu situated Kenya’s cost-of-living crisis within a broader global context, pointing to international volatility—particularly the enduring shockwaves of the Ukraine conflict—as a key driver of fuel prices. The message was calibrated: critical where necessary, constructive where possible.
What emerges from this carefully choreographed intervention is a party neither retreating nor capitulating, but recalibrating. ODM appears determined to engage, but only on terms that reflect its sense of stature and strategic value. It seeks partnership without subordination, coordination without capitulation.
Whether UDA will reciprocate in kind—or escalate the rhetorical stakes—remains to be seen. For now, the stage is set for a political contest defined as much by narrative control as by negotiation itself. In this unfolding drama, ODM has made one point abundantly clear: it will not be written out of the script.