Three Key Reasons UDA Suffered a Crushing Defeat in the Ol Kalou By-Election

By Benson Nyangweso

President William Ruto’s United Democratic Alliance (UDA) suffered a significant setback in the Ol Kalou parliamentary by-election held on 16 July 2026 after its candidate, Samuel Muchina Nyaga, was comprehensively defeated.

Sammy Kamau Waweru, the candidate of former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua’s Democracy for the Citizens Party (DCP), won by a landslide, securing approximately 35,440 votes against UDA’s roughly 5,450, a margin of nearly seven to one. The outcome has intensified political debate over UDA’s standing in the Mt Kenya region.

Although some analysts have linked the defeat to the political fallout following Mr Gachagua’s impeachment, others point out that UDA has won other by-elections in Central Kenya since then. In Mbeere North, for example, Leonard Wa Muthende of UDA defeated DCP’s Newton Karish with 15,802 votes to 15,308. UDA also performed well in several MCA by-elections held around the same period, making the scale of its defeat in Ol Kalou particularly striking.

A closer analysis suggests three key factors explain the result.

Strong Local Support for Rigathi Gachagua and DCP’s Effective Mobilisation

Ol Kalou, in Nyandarua County, is widely regarded as one of Mr Gachagua’s political strongholds. Following the death of long-serving MP Njuguna Kiaraho, the by-election quickly evolved into a high-profile political contest between the former deputy president and President Ruto’s administration. DCP successfully framed the election as an opportunity for voters to express dissatisfaction with the national government. Opinion surveys conducted before polling consistently placed the party comfortably ahead, reflecting strong grassroots support.

Public hostility towards UDA was also evident during the campaign. Several UDA campaign billboards were vandalised, while chants of “Wantam” became a recurring feature at political gatherings, signalling growing anti-government sentiment. Despite the presence of other opposition candidates, DCP succeeded in consolidating the protest vote. UDA’s candidate, a former aide to the late MP, was unable to overcome Mr Gachagua’s well-established political networks and influence within the constituency.

Voter Backlash Against Last-Minute Government Projects

The campaign featured an unusually heavy presence of senior government officials, including Cabinet Secretaries and Principal Secretaries, who launched development projects and distributed items such as mattresses, gas cylinders, cash donations and, controversially, boats in an area with no major rivers or lakes.

Opposition leaders criticised the activities as an attempt to use public resources to influence voters, although these allegations have not been independently verified. Rather than improving UDA’s prospects, many residents reportedly viewed the sudden wave of development activity,  including road upgrades and the issuance of long-delayed title deeds,  as election-driven rather than evidence of sustained government commitment.

Local reports also alleged that some voters were asked to surrender their national identity cards in exchange for goods, fuelling concerns about possible voter manipulation and disenfranchisement. The Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) confirmed that it had received complaints relating to alleged voter bribery and was investigating the claims.

Instead of strengthening support for UDA, the campaign strategy appeared to reinforce public perceptions that the government was attempting to win votes through last-minute incentives rather than addressing longstanding economic and development concerns.

Weak Candidate Selection and an Unconvincing Campaign

UDA’s internal nomination process also appears to have contributed to the party’s poor performance. The party’s candidate emerged from a low-turnout primary that attracted criticism over alleged irregularities and strategic shortcomings. He struggled to energise the party’s support base or unite local leaders behind his campaign. By contrast, DCP maintained a disciplined and well-organised grassroots operation throughout the campaign.

There were also allegations of violence, intimidation and the use of hired groups during the campaign period. However, these claims remain contested and have not been independently verified. Combined with growing dissatisfaction among sections of the Mt Kenya electorate, these local weaknesses further undermined UDA’s campaign.

Political Implications

The Ol Kalou by-election represents a major symbolic victory for Mr Gachagua and the Democracy for the Citizens Party. It also raises fresh questions about UDA’s ability to retain its traditional support base in the Mt Kenya region ahead of the 2027 General Election.

While a single by-election cannot be taken as a definitive predictor of national electoral outcomes, the result suggests that heavy government mobilisation and increased public spending during campaigns may not overcome underlying voter dissatisfaction. For UDA, the defeat highlights the importance of stronger grassroots engagement, credible candidate selection and sustained development rather than highly visible interventions during election periods.

For DCP, the victory strengthens its claim to be an emerging political force in Central Kenya and provides significant momentum as Kenya’s political landscape continues to evolve.