Kirinyaga underwear saga shifts to legal battle as Njeri Maina, Murango demand retractions

NAIROBI, Kenya, Sep 25 — The controversy over underwear branded with the National Government Affirmative Action Fund (NGAAF) and the name of Kirinyaga Senator James Kamau Murango has escalated into a legal dispute, with Murango and Kirinyaga Woman Representative Jane Njeri Maina demanding retractions and threatening further action over television reports linking them to the items.

The two leaders have denied procuring, funding, or distributing the underwear and have given the broadcasters 24 hours to retract the reports, issue public apologies, and remove the disputed content from their platforms.

The demands are contained in three letters dated September 24, 2026, prepared by Sakimpa & Partners Advocates and addressed to the management of the respective media organisations.

The lawyers argue that the reports created an impression that the two leaders were involved in the misuse of public funds or the distribution of the items for political purposes.

Njeri Maina, through her lawyers, denied authorising or participating in any diversion or improper expenditure of NGAAF funds.

She specifically stated that she “did not authorise or participate in any diversion or improper expenditure of NGAAF money.”

Her lawyers contend that references to her office and NGAAF in the coverage could lead viewers to conclude that she had worked with Murango to misuse public funds, an allegation they say is without factual basis.

Murango has similarly rejected any connection between his office and the alleged distribution.

In his demand letter, the senator said he “did not receive, control, use or misuse NGAAF funds for that purpose, whether acting alone or with Hon. Njeri Maina.”

He also denied authorising the use of his name on the underwear and said he had no role in procuring or administering anything under NGAAF.

Dispute over verification and right of reply

At the centre of the legal demands is not only the disputed connection to the underwear but also the manner in which the reports were produced.

The two leaders’ lawyers argue that the reports were published without allowing their clients to respond to the allegations before publication.

They have invoked the Code of Conduct for Media Practice, 2025, arguing that journalists and media organisations are required to verify allegations and provide an opportunity for individuals adversely affected by a report to respond.

The demand letters therefore seek more than removal of the reports.

The two leaders want the broadcasters to issue prominent retractions and apologies, provide a right of reply and admit liability in writing.

They have also demanded that the reports and related posts be removed from all platforms.

The legal correspondence puts the broadcasters on notice that failure to comply could trigger proceedings before the Media Complaints Commission as well as civil litigation seeking damages, interest and costs.

What triggered the dispute

The controversy arose from reports on underwear allegedly distributed in Kirinyaga bearing references to NGAAF and Murango’s political ambitions.

The reports showed the items and included captions linking them to the senator and references to Njeri Maina’s office.

One of the reports was headlined “Chupi za Murango Zaibua Hoja Kirinyaga,” while another report described anger among women over underwear allegedly promoting Murango’s 2027 gubernatorial bid.

The disputed items reportedly carried the inscriptions “NGAAF” and “Gov Kamau Murango 2027.”

The appearance of the NGAAF name on the items has heightened the controversy because the fund is a public programme administered through the office of the Woman Representative, while Murango serves as senator.

But the two leaders’ lawyers argue that the presence of those markings does not establish that either politician procured, financed or distributed the items.

Their legal position is that the reports created an adverse connection between their clients and the alleged conduct without establishing their involvement.

As of the time of filing, the broadcasters had not publicly responded to the demand letters.