President William Ruto’s administration has been marked by a series of cabinet reshuffles, raising concerns about the government’s stability and effectiveness.

These frequent changes—affecting both Cabinet Secretaries and Principal Secretaries—have led analysts to question whether the government is struggling to find its footing and meet the expectations of Kenyans.

Political analyst Prof. Macharia Munene argues that the reshuffles reveal a lack of preparation within the government, particularly in the selection of the right people to manage key sectors. 

“It shows that the President had not done a thorough job of preparing to govern and identifying who to rely on. The changes are a result of the realization that his government is failing at almost every turn in serving Kenyans,” Munene said.

He further emphasized the negative impact of constant ministerial changes, noting that even the most competent officials need time to adjust to new positions. Frequent reshuffles inevitably lead to delays in effectiveness.

“Whenever someone is moved to a new post, there will be an inevitable delay before they are fully effective,” he stated.

This instability, Munene says is particularly detrimental to vital ministries such as Education, Health, Defence, and Agriculture, which require continuity to ensure smooth operations.

For instance, the Ministry of Education has faced difficulties in rolling out the Senior Secondary School curriculum, while the Health Ministry’s social healthcare campaign has stalled.

Despite these ongoing challenges, President Ruto has continued with cabinet reshuffles, citing both performance issues and political considerations.

According to Munene, this constant instability undermines the government’s ability to implement its policy commitments effectively.

“No minister can hope to achieve very much in a tenure of less than two years. Any period short of two years is certainly undesirable. It demoralizes officials and leads to ineffective performance,” he said.

Governance expert James Ouma echoed these concerns, highlighting how reshuffles damage Kenya’s international standing. 

“Business in international fora requires continuity. If the country is constantly changing ministers, it risks weakening its international position,” Ouma remarked.

Adding that such instability hampers public service delivery and weakens parliamentary oversight. 

“When officials are frequently moved, the effectiveness of government policies is compromised,” Ouma explained. “The incentives from the presidency down to street-level bureaucrats are misaligned. When performance metrics are tied to political loyalty rather than service delivery, reshuffles do little to enhance efficiency.”

Political strategist Anthony Mutua added that the constant reshuffling fosters an environment where ministers are more concerned about job security than about delivering results.

“The instability caused by constant reshuffles makes it difficult for ministers to implement policies. They rarely stay long enough to be scrutinized, and by the time scrutiny intensifies, they’ve already been reassigned,” Mutua said. 

He further argued that ministers should be allowed to remain in their positions long enough to make meaningful changes and implement their policies effectively.

Barack Muluka, a Political analyst also believes the reshuffles indicate a government unable to deliver, predicting that the trend will continue in the coming days.

“Kenyans should stop dreaming and expecting service. Governance, as even the former Deputy President said, is about shareholders getting returns on investment, not service delivery,” Muluka said.

“There will be more reshuffles ahead. After that, Kenyans will have to decide whether they want more confusion or an end to it,” Muluka added.

Muluka also criticized Ruto’s leadership, arguing that the President’s failure to address underlying issues has led to the repeated reshuffles. According to him, reshuffling alone cannot resolve the government’s deeper problems.

As Kenya continues to grapple with frequent reshuffles, the question remains: can the government break free from this cycle of instability, or will these ongoing changes continue to undermine its ability to serve the people effectively?