Webuye West MP aspirant Joseph Lendrix Waswa is under fire after a journalist accused him of issuing chilling death threats over an unfavourable story published by another blogger.
A Kenyan journalist has raised alarm over a series of disturbing messages he says were sent in connection with businessman Joseph Lendrix Waswa, amid an escalating dispute over an online article that Waswa apparently wanted removed from the internet.
Screenshots reviewed for this story show messages containing language that the journalist interpreted as threats to his life after he declined to take responsibility for an article published by another website and refused to guarantee that it would be deleted.
The dispute centres on an article published by The Kenyan Daily Post concerning Waswa's private life and an alleged confrontation involving his wife at offices associated with Magnum Credit. The article carried the provocative headline: “Magnum Credit boss Joseph Waswa flies wife to a lavish vacation in Paris to cool things off after she stormed office and fought senior female staff member over their affair.”
The claims in that article concerning Waswa's marriage and an alleged affair are not the subject of this article. What is significant in the latest controversy is that the journalist being pressured over the publication says he neither owns nor controls the website that published it.
Despite explaining that distinction and attempting to withdraw from the matter entirely, the screenshots show that the dispute escalated into language that the journalist says left him fearing for his safety.
Among the most disturbing exchanges is a message sent during a WhatsApp conversation in which the sender writes in a mixture of Dholuo, Kiswahili and English:
“Omera abomanyi ngane nimekaa sana bila kuona Damu ya mtu.”
The unmistakably disturbing part of the message is: “nimekaa sana bila kuona Damu ya mtu” — literally, “I have stayed a long time without seeing someone's blood.”
The journalist subsequently attempted to remove himself completely from the dispute, writing:
“Am out of this business. Thanks for your time.”
The response was chilling:
“You can't be out.”
The journalist then replied:
“I dont want blood in my hands.”
Instead of allowing him to disengage, the response insisted that he should speak to the person behind the publication.
Read together, the exchanges raise serious questions about why a disagreement over an online article should descend into references to blood and insistence that a journalist cannot simply walk away from a dispute involving a website he says he does not own.
For a journalist, those are not words that can simply be brushed aside as ordinary disagreement.
The WhatsApp messages were not the only communications provided.
A separate SMS exchange shows another confrontation in which the incoming sender writes:
“Bro nitakupeleka mbio na Hio storie. Hutapenda.”
Loosely translated, the message warns: “Bro, I will deal with you over that story. You won't like it.”
During the increasingly hostile exchange, another incoming message states:
“Wait you will see what I will do.”
Taken individually, someone might attempt to dismiss such sentences as anger, bravado or words exchanged during a heated argument. When considered alongside the earlier reference to having gone a long time without “seeing someone's blood,” however, the journalist says the communications became sufficiently disturbing for him to preserve the screenshots and document what had happened.
The journalist says he regarded the messages as threats and became concerned that a disagreement about an online publication was developing into something potentially dangerous.
Perhaps the most extraordinary aspect of the entire dispute is that the journalist being pressured says the controversial article isn't even published on his website.
The screenshots show him repeatedly attempting to explain that, as a journalist and communications professional, he communicates with big bloggers and other media personalities as part of his work but does not control their publications.
At one point, he explains that he talks to different bloggers because he is also in the media industry and sometimes deals with them professionally. He further makes clear that this does not mean he owns their websites or has authority over what they publish.
That distinction should not be difficult to understand.
Journalists, bloggers, editors and public relations professionals routinely communicate with one another. Knowing a publisher does not make somebody the owner of that publisher's website. Speaking to a blogger does not provide administrative access to their publication, and being able to contact an editor does not mean someone can order that editor to delete a story.
If Waswa believes a publication has defamed him, Kenya provides lawful avenues through which he can seek a correction, right of reply, retraction or legal remedy. Pressuring a journalist who says he does not control the publication solves none of those issues.
The distinction is especially important because the article at the centre of the dispute was published by The Kenyan Daily Post, not by the journalist now raising concerns about threats.
The journalist says he neither owns nor operates that publication.
The article concerns an alleged confrontation involving Waswa's wife and a female employee associated with Magnum Credit, followed by claims that Waswa later travelled with his wife to Paris.
Those claims belong to the publisher that made them. If Waswa believes they are false, malicious or defamatory, his dispute should logically be with the publisher and should be pursued through appropriate legal or media channels.
What becomes troubling is an attempt to make another journalist personally responsible for securing the removal of content from an independent publication.
A journalist cannot delete what he does not control.
And he should certainly not fear violence because he cannot persuade somebody else to remove a story.
The latest episode is particularly concerning because Joseph Lendrix Waswa isn't an unknown individual suddenly thrust into public scrutiny.
His name has appeared repeatedly in Kenyan court records and news reports concerning serious criminal cases and investigations over the years. That history must be reported accurately because being charged, investigated or named in a case is not the same thing as being convicted.
In September 2023, People Daily reported that Waswa had been ordered to appear before court in connection with investigations arising from a purported KSh1 billion fake-gold transaction. The publication reported that he was expected to answer a charge concerning possession of forged US banknotes valued at approximately KSh93.7 million. People Daily report
The Star similarly reported in October 2023 that several suspects had been charged following investigations into a fake-gold deal involving a Tunisian businessman and said Waswa was expected in court separately concerning alleged forged banknotes. The Star report
Subsequent developments are equally important. In August 2025, prosecutors reportedly applied to withdraw charges against Waswa in a KSh400 million gold-fraud case after reviewing the file. Reporting on those proceedings said prosecutors informed the court that the alleged offence involving Waswa had not materialised and that they no longer wished to continue the case against him.
That development matters because previous accusations involving Waswa should not be distorted into convictions where none exist.
The latest messages have also prompted people familiar with Waswa's past to point journalists towards an older and much more serious chapter involving Club Etonia in Kimilili. Following publication of the threats controversy, an anonymous source contacted this publication claiming that Waswa previously operated the establishment and that it became the scene of a fatal shooting involving a university student.
Unlike many anonymous tips, important parts of this account are supported by historical court records and contemporary reporting. A 2011 Kenya Gazette notice lists Joseph Lendrix Waswa alongside Club Etonia in Kimilili, establishing a documented connection between Waswa and the establishment years before the fatal shooting that later became the subject of a murder prosecution.
The High Court record in Republic v Waswa shows that Waswa was subsequently charged with the murder of Mitch Barasa Kimiti, who was fatally shot at Kimilili on August 30, 2014. Waswa pleaded not guilty and the prosecution called several witnesses in an attempt to establish what happened during the chaotic events surrounding the shooting.
According to the High Court's summary of the evidence, one prosecution witness testified that he had gone to Club Etonia, which he identified as belonging to Waswa, before being joined by the deceased and another friend. A disturbance subsequently developed involving people at the establishment before events spilled outside.
In particularly serious testimony recorded by the court, the witness claimed that during the commotion Waswa emerged saying words to the effect that he “must kill someone,” went towards his vehicle and returned holding what the witness believed was a pistol. The witness later heard a gunshot and discovered that his friend had been shot. This was evidence presented by a prosecution witness and should not be confused with a judicial finding that Waswa fired the fatal shot.
Another prosecution witness, who was working as a watchman near Club Etonia, also described a confrontation outside the establishment. According to the court record, he testified that Waswa warned those fighting to stop or he would shoot. The witness subsequently heard a bang and saw somebody fall.
Police investigations documented the scene, including the area outside Etonia Club where the victim was found, a spent cartridge and the injuries suffered by the deceased. Waswa was eventually arrested and prosecuted for murder, placing the businessman at the centre of a lengthy criminal case.
However, the prosecution encountered a major evidential problem that is equally important to the historical record. A firearms examination established that Waswa's Ceska pistol did not match the spent cartridge recovered from the scene or the bullet extracted from the deceased.
That forensic finding became crucial. When the High Court eventually considered whether Waswa should be placed on his defence, it noted the mismatch between his firearm and the ballistic evidence and questioned whether another firearm could have been present during the commotion.
The court ultimately found serious gaps in the prosecution evidence. That means the old Etonia case cannot legitimately be presented as proof that Waswa killed the student. What can accurately be stated is that he was prosecuted over the fatal shooting, witnesses gave serious evidence concerning his alleged conduct that night, and ballistics evidence later created a fundamental problem for the prosecution's case against him.
The anonymous source further claimed that the student's death generated fury in Kimilili and that Club Etonia was subsequently torched. Historical reporting supports accounts that angry residents attacked the establishment following the fatal shooting.
The incident therefore became more than a criminal case. It generated considerable tension locally and added another controversial chapter to Waswa's public history.
Years later, those events have suddenly acquired renewed public interest because of the language contained in the messages now received by a Kenyan journalist. In one of the communications, the sender states that he had stayed a long time without “seeing someone's blood.”
An old criminal prosecution cannot be used to prove responsibility for a completely separate present-day accusation. However, against the documented history surrounding Etonia, language referring to “blood” inevitably becomes more disturbing and raises legitimate questions about what the sender intended the recipient to understand.
The anonymous source also claimed that following the Etonia controversy, Waswa shifted his attention towards Webuye and became associated with Mutengene Resort. Public reporting independently connects Waswa's activities with the establishment, although this publication has not established through ownership records that Waswa personally owns or founded the resort.
What is beyond doubt is that Waswa has increasingly built a public profile in Webuye West and is positioning himself for the constituency's parliamentary seat in the 2027 General Election. His activities in the area have included philanthropy, sporting events and other community initiatives aimed at increasing his visibility among residents.
That political ambition makes the latest controversy a matter of legitimate public interest. Someone seeking election to Parliament isn't merely a private businessman. Voters are entitled to examine his record, temperament, response to criticism and attitude towards journalists who publish or associate with people publishing information he dislikes.
The question therefore extends beyond one blogger, one article or one angry WhatsApp conversation. How would a politician who allegedly reacts this way to unwanted media coverage behave if entrusted with political power?
Waswa deserves the opportunity to explain the context of the messages and dispute any interpretation he believes is inaccurate. But the words captured in the screenshots cannot simply disappear because they are uncomfortable.
The journalist attempted to withdraw from the dispute by saying he wanted nothing more to do with it. The response was: “You can't be out.” In another exchange, the sender warned: “Bro nitakupeleka mbio na Hio storie. Hutapenda,” before subsequently stating: “Wait you will see what I will do.” Most disturbing was the separate reference to having stayed a long time without seeing someone's blood.
For somebody publicly positioning himself to represent Webuye West in Parliament in 2027, those are serious words that deserve a serious explanation. Waswa has every right to challenge reporting he believes is false, including through lawyers and the courts, but a parliamentary aspirant should understand better than most that criticism, scrutiny and uncomfortable headlines come with seeking public office.
The people of Webuye West will ultimately decide who represents them. As they make that decision, however, they are entitled to know not only what aspirants promise from campaign platforms but also how those aspirants conduct themselves when challenged, criticised or subjected to unfavourable media coverage.
Waswa's name had entered national headlines years earlier.
In 2019, police seized approximately KSh32.6 billion in counterfeit foreign and local currencies together with what investigators described as suspected fake gold from a residence in Ruiru.
Business Daily reported at the time that police linked the discovery to investigations into a group suspected of impersonating then-President Uhuru Kenyatta in an attempt to obtain money from businessman Naushad Merali. Waswa was among the suspects identified in reporting surrounding the investigation. Business Daily report
Waswa subsequently complained publicly about aspects of media coverage surrounding him, particularly reporting that brought his wife and private life into stories concerning the controversy.
That history makes the latest confrontation over another article concerning his private life especially striking.
There is nothing improper about Waswa objecting to reporting he considers inaccurate, intrusive or defamatory. He has every right to challenge journalists, demand corrections, issue a statement, instruct lawyers or seek redress through the courts.
What no public figure is entitled to do is threaten violence against a journalist.
Whether the latest communications meet the legal threshold for criminal threats is ultimately a matter for investigators and, if the matter reaches prosecution, the courts. But the language shown in the screenshots is serious enough to warrant scrutiny.
The businessman has also been connected to another criminal proceeding.
In July 2026, The Star reported that Waswa and former Sports Cabinet Secretary Rashid Echesa were among defendants in a KSh250 million fraud and extortion case involving Kakamega Governor Fernandes Barasa.
According to the report, a Kibera court gave Barasa a final opportunity to supply financial records requested by the defence so that the long-running trial could proceed. The charges remain accusations to be determined by the court. The Star report on the case
The existence of pending criminal proceedings does not establish Waswa's guilt. He remains entitled to the presumption of innocence and to challenge the prosecution's evidence.
But his extensive history in court and in the media makes it even more difficult to understand why a dispute over an unwanted article would apparently descend into aggressive private messages instead of being addressed through lawyers, a demand for correction or other established mechanisms.
Waswa's encounters with Kenya's criminal justice system stretch back further.
Official Kenya Law records show that in Joseph Lendrix Waswa v Republic, Waswa was facing a murder charge arising from the 2013 death of 22-year-old Mitch Barasa Kibiti. He pleaded not guilty, and litigation that subsequently reached Kenya's appellate courts concerned the extent to which lawyers representing a victim's family could participate in criminal proceedings. Kenya Law judgment
The appellate litigation concerned important procedural and constitutional questions surrounding victim participation and should not be misrepresented as establishing Waswa's guilt on the underlying charge.
Nevertheless, it forms part of the extensive public court record involving a businessman whose name has repeatedly appeared in serious litigation and media reporting.
One revealing portion of the WhatsApp conversation concerns Waswa's apparent frustration about his family being discussed publicly.
The journalist tells him:
“You need to change such because you are a public figure.”
The response is:
“It's my life men.”
That is, of course, partly correct. Public figures retain privacy rights. Being wealthy, politically connected, famous or frequently appearing in the media does not give journalists an unlimited licence to publish false claims about someone's marriage or family.
But public figures also have lawful options when they believe those boundaries have been crossed.
Waswa can issue a statement rebutting the story. He can request a correction or right of reply. He can send a demand letter. He can lodge a complaint with the appropriate media bodies where applicable. He can institute defamation proceedings if he believes the legal threshold has been met.
What cannot become normal in Kenya is the idea that an unwanted headline should result in journalists receiving messages referring to blood or warning them that they will “see” what somebody will do.
The underlying article about Waswa's wife and an alleged female employee may ultimately be accurate, inaccurate or somewhere in between. That is a separate journalistic issue that should be resolved on evidence.
If Waswa disputes the article, he should identify which assertions he says are false and provide his version of events. The publisher should then assess that response and make any correction that the evidence warrants.
But the situation changes fundamentally when a journalist who says he did not publish the article receives messages he interprets as threats because he cannot make another publisher remove it.
Kenyan journalists already operate in an environment where powerful political and commercial interests frequently attempt to influence reporting. Normalising intimidation as a method of dealing with unfavourable coverage would create an extremely dangerous precedent.
A journalist should never have to choose between helping someone suppress an article and fearing for his life.
And a journalist who does not even control the offending publication should certainly not become collateral damage in someone else's dispute with a blogger.
The most immediate questions for Joseph Lendrix Waswa are therefore not about gold, old court cases, Magnum Credit or even Paris.
They concern the communications now in the journalist's possession.
What did the sender mean by saying he had stayed a long time without seeing someone's blood?
What was meant when the journalist attempted to withdraw from the dispute and was told:
“You can't be out.”
What was meant by:
“Bro nitakupeleka mbio na Hio storie. Hutapenda.”
And what was behind the subsequent warning:
“Wait you will see what I will do.”
Most importantly, why was a journalist who says he neither owns nor controls The Kenyan Daily Post being pressured over an article published by that outlet?
Those are questions Waswa should have an opportunity to answer.
They are also questions that should not disappear merely because the journalist receiving the messages fears what might happen if he speaks publicly.
Kenya's constitutional protection of media freedom exists precisely because journalism cannot function properly when reporters fear personal retaliation from people displeased by coverage.
Businessmen, politicians and other powerful individuals have every right to defend their reputations. They have every right to challenge inaccurate reporting and pursue publishers through lawful channels.
If a publication lies about you, challenge the lie. If it defames you, seek legal redress. If it gets its facts wrong, demand a correction.
But no journalist should have to receive messages about “seeing someone's blood” simply because another publisher refuses to delete an article.
