"Don’t Do That Here”: Tension Brews in Senate After Sifuna, Cherargei Clash Over This

A tense moment unfolded in the Senate following a heated exchange between Nairobi Senator Edwin Sifuna and Nandi Senator Samson Cherargei during a debate on political branding and visibility in taxpayer-funded projects.

The disagreement arose after Sifuna criticized what he described as a growing trend among leaders to prominently display their names and portraits on completed and ongoing government infrastructure. 

He questioned whether such practices shift attention away from public service and toward personal political promotion.

According to parliamentary proceedings, Sifuna argued that projects financed by public funds should symbolize collective national progress rather than serve as platforms for individual recognition.

He warned that excessive branding risks transforming development initiatives into political advertising instead of shared achievements for citizens.

His remarks drew an immediate response from Senator Cherargei, who stood on a point of order and accused Sifuna of politicizing the chamber. 

In a firm rebuttal, Cherargei urged the Nairobi senator to reserve political attacks for media platforms rather than the Senate floor, emphasizing that parliamentary debate should remain centered on policy, legislation, and service delivery.

The exchange briefly disrupted the session, prompting the presiding chair to intervene and call for order. Senators were reminded to adhere to procedural rules and maintain respectful language while contributing to debate. 

After the intervention, proceedings resumed, though the confrontation had already captured attention beyond the chamber.

Clips and summaries of the incident quickly circulated across news bulletins and social media, sparking mixed reactions from the public. 

Some Kenyans defended Sifuna’s position, noting that part of Parliament’s oversight role is to question how public resources are used and presented. 

Others sided with Cherargei, arguing that administrations responsible for delivering development projects deserve acknowledgment.

Political analysts observe that disputes over credit for government achievements are not uncommon, particularly as competition intensifies ahead of future elections. 

Visibility around development often becomes a strategic tool for leaders seeking to demonstrate performance to voters.

Governance experts further note that debates about branding touch on broader questions of accountability and institutional identity. 

While supporters of leader recognition argue it enhances transparency by showing who is responsible for projects, critics maintain that public infrastructure should prioritize national symbols over individual images.