Kapsaret Member of Parliament Oscar Sudi has weighed in on the ongoing debate surrounding the possibility of extending President William Ruto’s term limits.
Speaking during the Kerio Valley Interdenominational prayers in Elgeyo Marakwet County on Sunday, January 5, Sudi reaffirmed his commitment to respecting Kenya’s Constitution and the rule of law.
Sudi’s remarks came in response to Tiati MP William Kamket’s recent suggestion that President Ruto should serve an additional 24 years in office.
Kamket had warned critics of the president, suggesting that their continued opposition could lead to an extension of Ruto’s presidency.
“I come from Baringo County, where we understand what 24 years means.
We know how to ensure the President stays on for an extended period,” Kamket said, hinting at the possibility of extending the President’s tenure if certain threats continue.
In his response, Sudi dismissed Kamket’s comments, stressing that Ruto’s remaining time in office is limited to just eight more years.
“Kamket has spoken about extending the President’s term for another 24 years, but we are people who respect the Constitution.
Mr. President, you have eight years left, and after that, it will be time to step down,” Sudi stated firmly.
Sudi also took aim at those labeling President Ruto as a potential one-term leader.
He argued that Kenya has never had a one-term president and criticized such predictions as baseless.
His comments come in the wake of Nandi Senator Samson Cherargei’s sponsorship of the Constitution of Kenya (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, 2024, which sparked widespread controversy.
The bill proposes to extend the terms for the President, Senators, MPs, MCAs, and Governors from five years to seven years, a move that many Kenyans have viewed as an attempt by politicians to hold onto power for longer.
In response to the bill, President Ruto and his ruling United Democratic Alliance (UDA) party strongly opposed any attempts to extend term limits.
The party, through its Secretary-General Hassan Omar, issued a statement on October 2, condemning the proposal as “repugnant, retrogressive, and primitive.”
The UDA emphasized its commitment to upholding the spirit of the Constitution and denounced any efforts that appeared to prioritize political gain over the nation’s democratic principles.
