A recent incident in Kuria West, Migori County, where President William Ruto was struck by a shoe during a public rally, has sparked heated debate across the country. Among those who reacted strongly to the episode was Lilian Nganga, who openly condemned the act and dismissed it as both disrespectful and ineffective.
The controversial moment unfolded while President Ruto was addressing a crowd and discussing economic measures aimed at reducing the cost of living. Despite the sudden disruption, he maintained his composure and continued speaking. The president also urged his security team to avoid using excessive force while identifying the person responsible, emphasizing a measured response.
The event drew widespread attention, with social media buzzing with opinions. While some Kenyans sympathized with the frustrations of citizens, many agreed that hurling a shoe at a national leader was crossing a line. The act was widely described as an expression of deep public dissatisfaction, though others questioned its usefulness in bringing about meaningful change.
Lilian Nganga, a well-known public figure, weighed in with her thoughts through her social media platform. She stated clearly that such actions are counterproductive and called for more constructive means of expressing grievances. In her post, she said, “Wrong! It achieves nothing. There are always better ways to air frustration, anger, displeasure, etc.” Her remarks sparked an intense debate online, with many agreeing with her, while others questioned her moral authority to comment on how people choose to express their frustration.
Critics accused her of trying to gain attention and even suggested her comments were an indirect attempt to stay relevant in political or social circles. Some users dismissed her opinion as out of touch with the real struggles faced by ordinary citizens. Others referenced her past personal decisions and questioned whether she was the right person to advise on handling emotional reactions.
Nevertheless, there were also those who supported her view, emphasizing the need for dialogue and civil discourse in a democratic society. They argued that while frustrations are valid, resorting to acts of aggression undermines the principles of peaceful protest and could set dangerous precedents.
In response to the incident, local authorities have taken action. Three individuals have been arrested in connection with the shoe-throwing, and investigations are ongoing. Officials have suggested possible political motivations behind the act and indicated that more arrests may follow.
The event has underscored the deep-seated tension between the leadership and segments of the population. While the shoe-throwing may have drawn attention to public discontent, it has also highlighted the divisive nature of political discourse in the country. The varying reactions—from condemnation to justification—reflect broader societal debates about the limits of protest, respect for institutions, and the role of public figures in influencing public opinion.
