In a statement that has already stirred political debate, Gakuya made it clear that while he remains a member of UDA, his confidence in the party as the vehicle for Kenya’s future has significantly waned.
“I am a member of UDA. I have not quit UDA,” Gakuya emphasized, pushing back against claims that he is planning an imminent exit.
However, he quickly added a qualifier that has set tongues wagging across the political divide: “My belief is that the future is not in UDA.”
That single line has become the focal point of intense discussion, interpreted by supporters and critics alike as a warning shot to the party’s leadership.
Gakuya’s remarks come at a time when UDA is grappling with internal unease, rising public expectations, and mounting pressure to deliver on its ambitious promises.
As a legislator who has previously been vocal in defending the party’s agenda, his latest position signals a growing rift between grassroots expectations and the direction taken by the party’s top brass.
According to the MP, the concerns are not personal but ideological, rooted in what he sees as a departure from the values that initially attracted many leaders and voters to UDA.
He pointed to frustrations among ordinary Kenyans who feel sidelined as the cost of living remains high and key reforms appear slow or selective.
Gakuya argued that political parties must remain dynamic and responsive, warning that any movement that ignores the mood of the people risks becoming irrelevant, regardless of its current hold on power.
Despite his criticism, the MP stopped short of announcing any new political home. Instead, he framed his comments as a call for introspection within UDA.
He urged party leaders to listen to dissenting voices rather than dismiss them as disloyal, insisting that constructive criticism is essential for growth.
Gakuya’s statement has injected fresh energy into conversations about Kenya’s political future.
Whether it marks the beginning of a broader realignment or serves as a wake-up call for UDA remains to be seen.
What is clear, however, is that his words have drawn a line between party membership and blind allegiance — a distinction that could shape political narratives in the months ahead.
