Standoff as journalists boycott Gachagua interview

By Newsflash Writer

A section of journalists from North Eastern Kenya boycotted a joint interview with former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua on Thursday, January 22.

The interview, which was expected to address governance, development and political issues affecting Northern Kenya, was halted shortly after it began.

Although it later resumed and was streamed on Gachagua’s social media platforms, only a small section of journalists from the region participated, with the majority withdrawing altogether.

The sudden turn of events immediately sparked debate, with questions raised over media independence, political pressure and freedom of expression.

Journalists explain their decision

In a statement dated Thursday, January 22, the Northern Kenya Media Practitioners announced their collective decision to withdraw from the planned interview, citing the need to uphold responsible journalism and national unity.

“It is with deep regret that we inform our esteemed audience of our collective decision to terminate the planned roundtable interview scheduled with Hon. Rigathi Gachagua,” the statement read.

The journalists said the decision followed internal consultations, arguing that proceeding with the interview would not have been consistent with the values of responsible journalism, national cohesion and constructive public discourse.

They noted that they had been closely monitoring Gachagua’s recent public statements, which they claimed had increasingly been characterised by divisive rhetoric, often emphasising ethnic and regional differences.

The media practitioners also expressed concern that the interview risked becoming a platform for reputational attacks or the dissemination of unsubstantiated allegations against individuals or institutions without adequate evidence.

In their statement, they reiterated their commitment to ethical journalism, informed debate and the promotion of peace and cohesion, adding that there was no clear assurance from Gachagua’s team that the discussion would remain respectful, evidence-based and focused on substantive issues.

Gachagua alleges intimidation

However, in a rejoinder, Gachagua dismissed the journalists’ explanation and instead claimed that the withdrawal was a result of intimidation by political leaders from the Northern Kenya region.

“There is very serious effort by leaders from Northern Kenya to scare and intimidate journalists as well as radio stations not to air our interview tonight,” Gachagua said, alleging that the aim was to deny residents of the region an opportunity to hear him out.

He accused the region’s political class of attempting to suppress the truth about underdevelopment and poverty in Northern Kenya, warning that such efforts would ultimately fail.

“My promise to you is that you will not succeed. If journalists can be intimidated to deny their listeners an opportunity to face the truth, who will help the people of Northern Kenya?” he posed.

Gachagua further claimed that while some journalists had “chickened out,” others had courageously ignored the alleged threats and intimidation and were ready to serve their audiences and the wider Kenyan public.

He insisted that the truth about governance and the use of public resources in the region would eventually come out, framing the incident as part of a broader struggle to “liberate” Northern Kenya from what he described as poor governance and theft of public resources.

Kenyans react

The incident quickly drew mixed reactions from members of the public, with many Kenyans taking to social media to criticise the journalists’ decision to withdraw, terming it biased and politically motivated.

Among the critics was lawyer Ahmednassir Abdullahi, who accused the journalists’ umbrella body of allegedly curtailing Gachagua’s right to speak and be heard.

“If you don’t like what Riggy G says or stands for, it doesn’t mean you curtail his rights to speak,” Ahmednassir said, arguing that it was contradictory to accuse Gachagua of intolerance while denying him a platform.

Others, however, defended the journalists, saying the media had a responsibility to avoid amplifying divisive narratives and to uphold ethical standards, even when faced with political pressure.