Most of us feel that they are free to travel anywhere within this republic, with the possible exceptions of certain well-known hotspots notorious for unpredictable outbursts of violence.
But apparently this is not the case for Kenyan presidents.
And earlier this week, media reports were full of speculation on how President William Ruto had been advised that it might be better if he did not turn up at Embu for a Sunday church service which he had earlier been expected to attend.
It is worth noting that the mere fact that just about anyone feels free to openly speculate on why the President decided to change the venue for his Sunday worship, is a refreshing reminder that freedom of speech flourishes in our country.
This was not always the case.
Indeed, while no previous Kenyan president has been spared the indignity of having to contend with a hostile reception at some point, it was not always safe to discuss such events in public.
Consider our founding President Jomo Kenyatta’s overwhelmingly hostile reception in Kisumu back in 1969, when he had gone there to officially open what was then known colloquially as the ‘Russia Hospital’.
This opening ceremony took place in the shadow of the fairly recent assassination of local hero Tom Mboya, whose death his supporters blamed on the government.
The crowd got so hostile that Jomo Kenyatta’s security team had to open fire on it, and thereafter literally shoot its way out of Kisumu.
The figure for the final death toll among the residents of Kisumu was suppressed by the government and remains unknown to this day.
Presidential security teams seem to be better trained these days.
When back in the electioneering period leading to the 1992 elections, a man in the crowd in Western Kenya threw a large rock at Kenya’s second president, Daniel Moi, the only thing that happened was that the rock was blocked from reaching its target.
But there was no blaze of gunfire directed at the unfriendly crowd (though rumour at that time was that the culprit was identified and later ‘dealt with’).
Kenya’s third president, Mwai Kibaki, also had his experience with a hostile crowd, which was rather different but much more tragic than the mere tossing of a rock in his general direction.
The president had travelled to the Rift Valley in the darkest days of the 2008 post-election violence, to preach peace at a public meeting dedicated to seeking reconciliation.
Suddenly, the TV cameras of the crews covering the event, switched from their focus on this meeting to the many plumes of smoke rising in the distance.
Some of the locals had chosen this very time to set fire to the homes of their helpless victims, and to send a clear message to Kibaki that his efforts were in vain.
Immediate former President Uhuru Kenyatta, visiting Migori county not very long after he was sworn in for his first term, had an old shoe thrown at him by someone in the crowd.
His security team, with exemplary professionalism, did not respond with a hail of bullets, but simply protected the president, and then let him go ahead with his speech.
Indeed, I am not sure if the crowd was really that hostile towards Uhuru, as that single incident does not really define a hostile crowd.
The shoe thrower lived to be interviewed by the media and to be asked to explain why he did it.
The point is that the office of the president requires that whoever holds it must at all times appear before the public in a dignified and composed manner.
And most of the time this is possible, even when in the campaign season, large and sometimes unruly crowds surround a president.
I would like to think that it is unimaginable that in this day and age, a Kenyan president’s security detail would have to fire into a crowd in order to keep him safe.
But a shrewd president does not take chances
over such matters and is best to avoid even a remote
possibility of having to face a hostile crowd.