A public row has erupted over the controversial “wantam” slogan, after author Mukoma wa Ngugi sharply criticised constitutional advisor Makau Mutua for suggesting the phrase could amount to coded hate speech.
Mutua, who advises President William Ruto on constitutional affairs, had earlier warned that the slogan reflects a troubling shift in Kenya’s political discourse.
“The slogan ‘wantam’ could be considered coded hate speech. The bile and toxicity of its speakers are a radical departure from Kenya’s political discourse. None of the previous two incumbents were subjected to such unfathomable calumny,” Mutua stated.
The remarks triggered swift backlash from Mukoma, son of the late literary icon Ngũgĩ wa Thiong’o, who questioned both the intent and implications of Mutua’s position.
“It is not surprising that activist intellectuals can become a dictator's soothsayer. Still, I am surprised that Prof. Makau serves as Ruto's Senior Advisor on Constitutional Affairs,” Mukoma said.
In his response, Mukoma raised concerns about the role of intellectuals within government, suggesting that such positions risk legitimising actions that may undermine constitutional principles.
“How do you advise a bumbling dictator on the constitution unless you are helping them learn how best to subvert it?” he posed.
The “wantam” slogan—widely understood to mean “one term”—has increasingly been used by critics of President Ruto to express opposition to his leadership and any potential second-term ambitions.
Its growing prominence has, however, drawn scrutiny from sections of government concerned about the tone of political messaging.
Mukoma also challenged the practicality of regulating such language, warning that attempts to interpret intent could lead to arbitrary enforcement.
“How do you determine if when I say ‘wantam’ I do not mean one term? As in I went to school and did only wantam/one term?” he argued.
“Is this where the police determine when one term is not wantam by tone? By what syllables were stressed? This could be considered asinine, dangerous and funny all at the same time.”
The exchange highlights an intensifying debate over freedom of expression in Kenya, particularly as political tensions begin to build ahead of future electoral contests.
While Mutua’s remarks reflect concerns within government about increasingly harsh political rhetoric, Mukoma’s response underscores fears among critics that labelling dissenting slogans as hate speech could open the door to suppression.