Former UDA secretary general point fingers at party colleagues over ouster

Political turbulence inside the United Democratic Alliance has resurfaced after former Secretary General Cleophas Malala made explosive claims about the circumstances that led to his exit from one of the ruling party’s top positions.

Speaking on July 13, 2027, Malala, who previously served as Kakamega Senator, alleged that internal lobbying and pressure from certain party stalwarts directly influenced the decision to remove him from office. He singled out veteran politician Boni Khalwale, accusing him of orchestrating a prolonged campaign inside party headquarters to force the change.

According to Malala, the push to unseat him was not a brief or procedural matter. It involved sustained presence and intense engagement at the party’s offices.

“People like Khalwale were behind my removal from the UDA Secretary General position,” Malala stated. “He camped in the office for three days, even without changing his clothes, until I was removed as Secretary General.”

The vivid description has reignited debate about factionalism within the ruling party and the extent to which personalities and personal rivalries shape key appointments.

Malala assumed the role of UDA Secretary General at a time when the party was consolidating its structures following a national election victory. As the chief administrative and organizational officer, the Secretary General is responsible for running party affairs, coordinating grassroots mobilization, managing communication, and ensuring party discipline across counties. It is widely viewed as the engine room of any political party.

His tenure, however, was marked by both visible achievements and behind-the-scenes friction. Supporters credited him with efforts to streamline party operations and expand UDA’s footprint beyond its traditional strongholds. Critics within the party, on the other hand, accused him of making unilateral decisions and sidelining senior figures in key deliberations.

The tensions came to a head with his eventual removal, a move that was announced through official party channels but without detailed public explanation at the time. The party leadership cited the need for “realignment” and “strengthening party unity” as reasons for the change, stopping short of naming individuals or outlining specific grievances.

Malala’s latest remarks now provide his own version of events one that places the focus squarely on internal power struggles rather than administrative performance.

The most striking part of Malala’s account is the claim that a senior party figure maintained a constant presence at UDA headquarters for days in order to press for his removal.

By saying the individual “camped in the office for three days, even without changing his underwear,” Malala painted a picture of determined, round-the-clock lobbying. Whether meant literally or figuratively, the comment suggests a level of urgency and insistence that, in his view, left party leadership with little room to resist.

The reference to Khalwale is significant. The former Kakamega Senator has been a vocal and influential voice within UDA since its formation. Known for his grassroots mobilization skills and strong presence in the Western region, Khalwale has often positioned himself as a defender of party ideology and loyalty. He has also not shied away from public disagreements with other party officials when he believes the party’s direction is at stake.

Malala’s accusation implies that Khalwale was not acting alone, but was part of a broader group within the party that was dissatisfied with his leadership style. The phrase “people like Khalwale” suggests a coalition of interests rather than a solo effort.

As of now, Khalwale has not issued a public response to the specific allegations. Party officials have also remained cautious, reiterating that leadership changes are made in the best interest of UDA’s long-term objectives.

Malala’s comments open a window into how decisions are made within the ruling party when personalities clash. Political parties, especially those in government, often face the challenge of balancing competing egos, regional interests, and policy priorities. In UDA’s case, the rapid transition from opposition movement to governing party created new pressures.

As Secretary General, Malala held significant authority over party operations. That concentration of power inevitably creates friction with elected leaders and senior members who expect to be consulted on major decisions. Allegations of being sidelined are common in large parties, and they often become the basis for calls for leadership change.

UDA draws support from multiple regions, and maintaining that coalition requires careful balancing. Western Kenya, where both Malala and Khalwale have political bases, has been a key battleground for influence within the party. Leadership changes are often interpreted through a regional lens, even when the official reasons are administrative.

Parties in power tend to place a premium on loyalty. Figures who are seen as disruptive, or as prioritizing personal branding over party unity, often find themselves isolated. Malala’s removal, and his explanation of it, suggests that questions of loyalty and alignment were central to the discussions that led to his exit.

Since leaving the Secretary General position, Malala has maintained a public profile. He continues to comment on national issues and has positioned himself as a leader with experience in both legislative and party management roles. His decision to speak out now, years after the event, indicates that the manner of his departure remains a sensitive issue for him.

By choosing to name names and describe the process in such personal terms, Malala is also signaling that he does not view his exit as a routine administrative decision. Instead, he frames it as the result of targeted political maneuvering.

That framing matters because it shapes how party members and the public understand internal accountability. If leadership changes are perceived to be driven by backroom pressure rather than transparent process, it can erode confidence in party institutions.

The episode raises larger questions about governance within major political parties.

First, there is the issue of due process. Parties are expected to have clear mechanisms for evaluating the performance of office holders. When a removal happens, members and supporters expect to understand the criteria used. Vague statements about “realignment” leave room for speculation and competing narratives, as seen in Malala’s account.

Second, there is the role of senior party figures in personnel decisions. In most parties, influential leaders have input into key appointments. The line between legitimate consultation and undue pressure, however, can be thin. Malala’s description of a multi-day lobbying effort suggests he believes that line was crossed in his case.

Third, public airing of internal disputes has consequences. On one hand, transparency can help members understand what is happening inside the party. On the other hand, personal accusations can deepen divisions and distract from the party’s public agenda.

UDA remains the ruling party and continues to face the challenges of governing while keeping its internal coalition intact. Leadership changes are inevitable in any large organization, but how they are handled determines whether they strengthen or weaken the institution.

For Malala, the remarks appear to be an effort to set the record straight from his perspective and to remind the party base of his contributions and the circumstances of his exit. For the party, the challenge will be to manage such narratives without allowing them to derail focus on policy delivery and grassroots engagement.

Whether Khalwale or other named figures respond directly remains to be seen. What is clear is that the conversation about internal democracy, accountability, and power within UDA is far from over.

As political parties prepare for future electoral cycles, the way they handle leadership transitions and internal dissent will be closely watched not just by members, but by voters who ultimately judge parties on both their unity and their ability to deliver.

Malala’s account adds another chapter to that ongoing story, one that highlights how personal relationships and behind-the-scenes lobbying can shape the leadership of even the most powerful political institutions.