Fake Fertilizer Saga:Gachagua Says Linturi Was Fired for Refusing Corruption

Spread the love

Former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua has reignited political debate around the controversial fertiliser saga, making explosive claims that threaten to reopen one of the most damaging scandals to rock the Kenya Kwanza administration.

Speaking in a candid and politically charged address, Former Duputy President Rigathi Gachagua alleged that former Agriculture Cabinet Secretary Mithika Linturi was unfairly targeted and eventually dismissed for crimes he did not commit.

According to Gachagua, powerful individuals within government circles were determined to pin the fake fertiliser scandal on Linturi, despite knowing he had no role in the alleged wrongdoing.

He claimed that there were deliberate attempts to fabricate evidence and force prosecutions based on falsehoods, all in an effort to protect the real architects of the scandal.

Gachagua went further to name President William Ruto and Head of Public Service Felix Kosgei as being linked to individuals involved in the fake fertiliser deal, asserting that the network behind the scandal operated with high level political protection.

He argued that Linturi’s refusal to endorse or defend corrupt dealings made him a liability within the system.

“Linturi could not accept corruption narratives around fertiliser because he knew the truth,” Gachagua stated, insisting that the former CS stood his ground and refused to be used as a scapegoat. This resistance, he claimed, ultimately cost Linturi his job.

Also Read

The former DP described the push to prosecute Linturi as a political witch-hunt driven by internal power struggles rather than accountability.

He said that those who orchestrated the fake fertiliser imports were the same individuals who turned around to demand Linturi’s removal when the scandal became public.

Linturi was dismissed at the height of public outrage over substandard fertiliser allegedly supplied to farmers, a scandal that triggered parliamentary probes and nationwide protests from farming communities.

At the time, the government maintained that decisive action had been taken to restore integrity in the agriculture sector.

However, Gachagua’s remarks now cast doubt on that official narrative, suggesting that the sack was more about damage control and political survival than justice.

His claims are likely to intensify scrutiny of the fertiliser programme and fuel calls for fresh investigations into the roles played by senior government officials.

As political temperatures rise, Gachagua’s statements mark a significant escalation in his criticism of the administration he once served.

Whether his allegations will prompt accountability or deepen political divisions remains to be seen but one thing is clear: the fake fertiliser saga is far from over.