Energy and Petroleum Cabinet Secretary Opiyo Wandayi has urged a section of Orange Democratic Movement (ODM) leaders to reconsider their hardline positions as the party prepares for negotiations over a possible political agreement with President William Ruto’s United Democratic Alliance (UDA) ahead of the 2027 General Election.

Wandayi’s remarks come at a time when political discussions surrounding the future of ODM and its relationship with the ruling UDA party are gaining momentum. The possibility of a pre-election arrangement between the two political formations has generated debate within ODM, with different leaders expressing varying opinions on the terms under which the party should cooperate with Ruto’s administration.

The Cabinet Secretary has called for a more flexible approach, arguing that ODM should prioritise the broader political relationship and the development interests of its supporters rather than placing strict conditions on negotiations. He has maintained that the party should support the broad-based government and consider backing Ruto’s re-election bid without attaching demands to its support.

His position reflects a growing debate within the political establishment over whether ODM should enter into a formal agreement with UDA before the next General Election or continue engaging the government through the existing broad-based arrangement.

Wandayi has pointed to development gains received by the region under the current administration as one of the reasons ODM should maintain its cooperation with the government. He believes that continued engagement could provide an opportunity for the region to benefit from ongoing and future development initiatives.

The remarks have, however, come against the backdrop of demands from senior ODM officials who want the party to secure clear political guarantees before committing itself to a possible electoral partnership with Ruto’s UDA.

The group, led by ODM Deputy Party Leader Simba Arati, has reportedly pushed for a binding pre-election agreement that would outline how power would be shared between the two political parties in the event of a successful electoral arrangement.

Among the key demands is a guarantee that ODM would receive the Deputy President position. The party's leadership has also raised the prospect of a 50-50 power-sharing arrangement, alongside zoning of elective seats in areas considered ODM strongholds.

These demands are aimed at ensuring that ODM does not enter into a political partnership without clearly defined benefits and an agreed framework governing its participation in the next administration.

The Deputy President position is particularly significant because it would provide the party with a senior role in the national executive. Such an arrangement would also offer ODM an opportunity to influence government policy and decision-making at the highest level.

The proposed 50-50 power-sharing formula is another major issue likely to shape discussions between the two political formations. It would seek to establish an agreed distribution of political positions and responsibilities, although the details of how such an arrangement would work would need to be negotiated.

The question of zoning elective seats is equally important because it touches on the political interests of leaders seeking to retain or strengthen their influence in their respective regions.

Zoning is often used in political negotiations to avoid competition between allied parties in selected constituencies and electoral areas. Under such an arrangement, participating parties may agree to support one another's preferred candidates in specific political strongholds.

For ODM, securing such guarantees could help protect its political influence in areas where it has traditionally enjoyed considerable support. It could also reduce the possibility of disagreements arising from competition between ODM and UDA candidates during the election campaign.

However, Wandayi’s call for ODM leaders to put aside hardline demands suggests that some members of the party may prefer a more flexible approach to the negotiations.

The difference in positions highlights the challenge facing ODM as it considers its political direction ahead of the 2027 elections. While some leaders appear willing to support closer cooperation with Ruto, others want the party to establish firm conditions before making any commitment.

The debate is likely to become more significant as the election approaches and political formations begin positioning themselves for possible alliances.

Political agreements have traditionally played an important role in Kenya’s electoral landscape, with parties entering into partnerships to consolidate support, negotiate positions and strengthen their chances of winning national and regional seats.

Such arrangements can provide political organisations with opportunities to expand their influence beyond their traditional strongholds. However, they can also create disagreements when participating parties have different expectations regarding leadership positions, policy priorities and the distribution of political power.

For ODM, the current debate is not only about whether to support Ruto’s re-election bid but also about how the party can preserve its identity and political influence while engaging with the government.

The party has built its political support through years of campaigning, organising and participating in national political contests. Any decision to enter into a formal arrangement with UDA would therefore carry implications for its leadership, supporters and future electoral strategy.

Leaders demanding a binding agreement are likely to argue that political cooperation should be based on clearly established commitments rather than informal assurances. Such an agreement could provide a reference point for resolving disagreements and ensuring that both sides understand their responsibilities.

They may also view the Deputy President position and the proposed power-sharing formula as necessary safeguards against a situation in which ODM provides political support without receiving a corresponding role in government.

On the other hand, Wandayi’s position places greater emphasis on continued engagement and the development opportunities that could arise from cooperation with the current administration.

His argument suggests that ODM should consider the benefits of maintaining a working relationship with the government rather than allowing disagreements over political positions to undermine cooperation.

The development question remains an important part of the debate because political leaders are often judged by their ability to secure projects and opportunities for the communities they represent.

Infrastructure, employment, education, healthcare and other public services are among the issues that influence political conversations across the country. Leaders seeking support from their communities are therefore likely to consider how their political decisions could affect access to government programmes and development resources.

Wandayi’s remarks appear to place these considerations at the centre of his argument for unconditional support of Ruto’s re-election bid.

However, the position of ODM leaders demanding specific guarantees demonstrates that development considerations are not the only factors influencing the party’s political calculations. Leadership representation, influence in government and protection of elective seats are also central to the discussions.

The negotiations could therefore involve difficult conversations as the two sides seek to establish whether their political interests can be accommodated within a common arrangement.

UDA, as the party associated with Ruto’s administration, would also have to consider the implications of any agreement that provides ODM with significant positions and political influence.

A 50-50 power-sharing arrangement, for instance, would require extensive negotiations over the positions available and the criteria for distributing them. The Deputy President position would also be a major consideration in determining the structure of any potential partnership.

Similarly, zoning elective seats would require discussions on the geographical areas where each party would be expected to support the other's candidates.

Such negotiations could become complicated in areas where both parties have ambitious political leaders seeking elective positions. Even where the parties agree on the broader principle of cooperation, individual candidates may have different interests and ambitions.

The internal discussions within ODM are also likely to influence how the party approaches the negotiations. Leaders may need to establish a common position before engaging in formal discussions with UDA to avoid presenting conflicting demands.

A united position could strengthen the party's bargaining power, while continued disagreements could complicate efforts to reach a common understanding.

The party's supporters will also be watching the discussions closely, particularly as they consider what a possible alliance with Ruto would mean for ODM's political identity and future leadership.

For some supporters, cooperation with the government could provide an opportunity to influence national decisions and secure development benefits. Others may prefer the party to maintain a distinct political position and negotiate from a stronger independent platform.

The debate also reflects the wider political realignments expected ahead of the 2027 General Election. Political leaders and parties are already assessing possible alliances, regional voting patterns and the positions they could occupy in the next administration.

As the political landscape continues to evolve, negotiations between ODM and UDA could become an important factor in determining the direction of the next election.

Wandayi’s intervention adds another dimension to the debate by challenging ODM leaders who are insisting on strict conditions before supporting Ruto’s political ambitions.

His call for unconditional backing contrasts with the demands for a formal agreement that would guarantee ODM a share of government leadership and influence over elective seats in its strongholds.