In a sharp rejoinder, Owino insisted that the responsibility for paying agents lay with individuals linked to former President Uhuru Kenyatta’s camp, accusing Sifuna of misleading the public on the matter.
Speaking during a charged political exchange, Owino said Azimio agents had clear expectations about who would remit their allowances during the election period.
According to him, arrangements were made for payments to be handled by a specific side within the coalition, not the ODM secretariat.
“Our agents were supposed to be paid by someone from Uhuru’s side,” Owino stated, urging Sifuna to “stop lying” about the process and outcome.
The remarks mark a notable shift in tone from Owino, who has previously defended the broader Azimio leadership while criticizing Kenya Kwanza.
His latest comments suggest growing frustration with internal accountability within the opposition, especially on issues that directly affect grassroots mobilization and electoral integrity.
Payment of agents is a sensitive subject, often cited as critical to safeguarding votes and maintaining morale at polling stations.
Sifuna, for his part, has maintained that ODM fulfilled its obligations and that any payment failures should not be laid at the party’s door.
He has argued that coalition mechanisms and partner entities bore responsibility for certain logistical and financial tasks.
The disagreement has exposed lingering fault lines within Azimio following Raila Odinga’s passing and the coalition’s participation in a broad-based government arrangement.
Political observers note that the dispute is less about personalities and more about transparency in coalition politics. Azimio, formed as a multi-party alliance, relied on shared responsibilities and trust among partners.
Allegations of unpaid agents—and counterclaims over who was responsible—have rekindled questions about coordination, financial controls, and post-election accountability.
Importantly, MP Babu Owino stopped short of naming specific individuals who allegedly mishandled funds, framing his remarks as an institutional failure rather than a criminal accusation.
Nonetheless, the language used has intensified pressure on Azimio leaders to clarify payment processes and reconcile conflicting narratives.