We all blame the government true

Leaving a sponsored job position—especially one tied to legal residency or visa status—can carry serious implications for both the individual and the sponsor. If someone decides to exit such a role and even leave the country entirely for safety reasons, the situation becomes more complex, layered with personal, legal, and political meaning. In the case of someone like Samidoh, a well-known Kenyan public figure often surrounded by both admiration and controversy, the situation invites deeper examination.

Let’s break this down.

Understanding Sponsorship and Responsibility

A sponsor, whether it’s an organization, government, or individual, vouches for the person they bring into a role or into a country. They often guarantee that the individual will fulfill certain duties and behave in a way that reflects well on them. If the person leaves—especially under circumstances involving threats or personal danger—it can put the sponsor in a difficult position.

There are usually two major consequences:

1. Reputational impact – The sponsor may appear to have either failed in their judgment or not provided adequate support or protection.

2. Legal or procedural ramifications – In some countries, sponsors may be held responsible for costs incurred by the person they brought in or for reporting the departure to authorities.

So, when someone flees a job and country for their safety, the sponsor might face questions like:

• Did they ignore signs of risk?

• Were they complicit in any mistreatment?

• Are they now liable for contractual breaches?

Why Safety Changes Everything

Choosing to leave a country due to threats, intimidation, or lack of protection changes the moral weight of the decision. It’s no longer about breaking a contract—it’s about survival. In such cases, the focus often shifts to the conditions that forced the person out, rather than the technicalities of their departure. It raises questions about governance, justice, and support systems.

In Samidoh’s case, while he is primarily known as a musician and police officer, his personal life and affiliations have drawn immense public scrutiny. If he—or anyone in a similar position—left a post and fled for safety, it might suggest deeper institutional issues, such as lack of security, abuse of power, or politicized threats. This makes it less a case of someone abandoning responsibility, and more an indictment of the system they left behind.

The Sponsor’s Position

For the sponsor, the situation is delicate. Publicly criticizing the person might seem insensitive or even dangerous, especially if the reasons for leaving are valid and serious. Supporting them, on the other hand, might mean admitting to failures or exposing the internal flaws of the system.

Ultimately, the sponsor must balance truth, responsibility, and diplomacy. The best approach would involve:

• Acknowledging the individual’s contribution.

• Expressing concern over the safety issues raised.

• Cooperating with any necessary investigations or reviews.

Final Thoughts

Leaving a job and a country under sponsorship is always a big deal. But when it’s done in the name of safety, it demands empathy and deeper inquiry. It’s not simply about broken agreements—it’s about broken trust in institutions meant to protect people.

In Samidoh’s case, or any similar one, it signals that even public figures with influence and support can feel unsafe—and that says something urgent about the environment they’re fleeing from.

It’s a call not just to look at one person’s exit, but to examine the reasons why staying became impossible.