US lecturer urges UK not to host President Ruto

President William Ruto during the 3rd National Executive Retreat to review Government performance meeting at KCB leadership centre, Nairobi, on June 19, 2025. [Jonah Onyango, Standard]

A US-based lecturer has written to British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, urging him not to host President William Ruto, citing a contradiction with Britain’s professed democratic values

In a letter dated June 29, Prof Peter Ndiangui—a renowned human rights activist—described the United Kingdom’s decision to host the Kenyan President as “a betrayal of human rights and an insult to Kenyans”. “The UK’s decision to host President William Samoei Ruto at this profound dark moment in his nation’s history is ill-considered, an appalling affront to the people of Kenya and a glaring contradiction of Britain’s professed democratic values,” he said

Prof Ndiangui, who is a lecturer at Florida Gulf Coast University in the United States, copied the letter to UK Foreign Secretary David Lammy and MPs of the UK parliament.

President Ruto left the country on Sunday for an official visit to Spain and the United Kingdom.

However, Prof Ndiangui contended that the diplomatic engagement comes too soon after the “extrajudicial slaughter of unarmed civilians on the streets of Nairobi and other towns”, and thus amounts to “nothing short of State-sponsored endorsement of tyranny”.

He called on the British government to immediately rescind any diplomatic invitation or State engagement with President Ruto, and to publicly and unequivocally condemn the recent killings and human rights violations carried out by Kenyan security agencies. Ndiangui argued that legitimising such bloodshed emboldens repression and effectively aligns Britain with a regime “that has brutally turned its guns against its own youth”.

Ndiangui also urged the UK government to condemn Interior Cabinet Secretary Kipchumba Murkomen for what he termed a “chilling instruction” to shoot any civilian seen near a police station. He described the directive as vile, unconstitutional, and a spark for international outrage.