I saw the death of Cyrus Jirongo on December 13, 2025, become a rallying point for calls for Luhya unity and thought that at long last Luhya unit had come. Politically I thought the death had unified the Luhyas when I saw a front of shared suspicion among Luhya leaders. Figures such as George Khaniri, Fred Gumo, Boni Khalwale, Eugene Wamalwa and others collectively dismissed the official police report of a “normal traffic accident”. I thought that this shared skepticism crossed sub-tribe and party lines, as I saw leaders united in demanding a forensic investigation and questioning the circumstances of his 3:00 a.m. crash in Naivasha.
I saw the death bring together traditionally rivalrous Luhya leaders, including National Assembly Speaker Moses Wetang’ula and Prime Cabinet Secretary Musalia Mudavadi. I thought his burial on December 30, 2025, in Lumakanda, Kakamega, saw a strong display of cultural solidarity through Tiriki traditional rites. By the way I am aware that this particular Tiriki rite is not universal in the Luhya nation; it is not a standard funeral rite for prominent groups like the Maragoli. So, when opinion leaders and shapers from many Luhya subgroups clamored for it I thought Luhya unity had arrived.
While the Jirongo funeral looked to me like a platform for “unity” rhetoric, I thought I saw the underlying heterogeneity and political competition of the Luhya nation remaining very visible. For example, the burial mass was dominated by talk of the 2027 General Election, with some leaders using Jirongo’s legacy to argue that the community must field a single presidential candidate—a goal that has historically eluded the 18+ sub-tribes. However, during the proceedings, some leaders publicly challenged Wetang’ula and Mudavadi to use their government positions to get “the truth” about the death, highlighting existing tensions between those Luhyas in the government and those in the opposition.
In my own summary, Jirongo’s death provided a powerful symbolic moment of grief and cultural solidarity, but it has not resolved the deep-seated political divisions that typically characterize the heterogeneous Luhya community.
I ask myself would the Kikuyus or the Luo have been divided on an issue like this the way the Luhyas have been. That forces me look at key historical perspectives.
The Luhya community is significantly more heterogeneous than the Luo or Kikuyu, primarily because it is a confederation of 18 to 21 distinct sub-tribes that were politically unified only in the mid-20th century. Unlike the more centralized or culturally uniform identities of the Kikuyu and Luo, the Luhya identity consists of diverse groups with varying origins, dialects, and traditions. Because of this diversity, the Luhya are often described as a “collection of tribes” rather than a single homogenous ethnic group. This internal heterogeneity often impacts political unity compared to the more “solid” voting blocs seen in the Luo or Kikuyu communities
My history tells me that while the Kikuyu and Luo generally trace their roots to common ancestral figures (Gikuyu and Ramogi, respectively), the Luhya sub-tribes lack a singular common origin. For example the bukusu talk of Muntu, the maragoli of Mulogoli, the Tachoni of some Kalenjin ancestors etc
The “Luhya language” is actually a collection of distinct dialects that are not always mutually intelligible between distant sub-tribes. In contrast, the Kikuyu and Luo speak languages that are much more uniform across their respective populations.
My casual observation tells me that despite the “Mulembe Nation” rhetoric at the funeral on December 30, 2025, the community remains fragmented by succession politics for 2027. To me the funeral became a battleground for influence. Some leaders openly challenged National Assembly Speaker Moses Wetang’ula and Prime Cabinet Secretary Musalia Mudavadi to take more responsibility for the community’s safety and political direction.
Public speculation regarding Jirongo’s final hours—spent in the company of other top Luhya leaders—has fueled internal whispers and finger-pointing, suggesting that political rivalries may be growing more personal and bitter.
The death of Cyrus Jirongo may have left the Luhya community in a state of heightened symbolic unity but also deepening political friction. While the tragedy may have consolidated a shared cultural identity, it has also amplified existing divisions regarding leadership and trust.
In my opinion the political front has for nearly 100 years failed to unite the 18+ sub-tribes of the Luhya. Indeed, the name Luhya was coined in the 1930s, specifically to unite a heterogenous group. Might it not be time to change or introduce a new strategy!! Might true cohesion not come from shared economic interests, cultural preservation, and social accountability rather than political rhetoric!!!
Leaders such as Wycliffe Oparanya have recently described Western Kenya as a “sleeping giant” whose potential remains untapped due to political division. Unity may be found by organizing around specific economic goals of poverty alleviation and food security; Youth Employment, reinforced cultural “Hearth” traditions, shared educational & professional aspirations
I see governors in Western Kenya being the “new frontline” for Luhya unity, moving away from traditional reliance on national “kingpins.” Their strategies for unification should center on economic integration, grassroots mobilization, and the rejection of old political orders.
Elsewhere, https://mukmik.co.ke I have opined on how the current and/or incoming governors of Bungoma, Busia, Kakamega, Trans Nzoia and Vihiga could add value to the efforts of unifying the Luhyia Nation by aggressively promoting the cultural angle to add on the political angle’
©HMBwisa