Kericho Governor Erick Mutai was on Wednesday impeached by 31 out of the 47 members of the County Assembly (MCAs) despite a court order stopping debate on ouster motion.
Sixteen MCAs loyal to the county boss boycotted the session, challenging the legitimacy of the vote threshold required for impeachment.
The impeachment motion by Sigowet ward MCA Kiprotich Rogony accused the governor of gross violations of the Constitution, abuse of office, and gross misconduct.
Despite the serious accusations, Mr Mutai chose not to appear before the assembly to defend himself instead opting instead to send his legal team comprising lawyers Katwa Kigen and Manase Tunen to represent him.
The impeachment process continued despite a court injunction issued by Justice Joseph Sergon the previous day, which barred the assembly from debating or voting on the impeachment motion until a petition filed by the governor is heard and determined.
The county boss had named the County Assembly, Speaker Patrick Mutai, and MCA Rogony as respondents in the case.
Justice Sergon’s ruling instructed the respondents to file and serve their responses within three days of receiving the court order, with written submissions to follow within ten days.
The oral hearing was set for October 15, 2024.
However, the speaker did not acknowledge the court injunction during the proceedings allowing the impeachment debate to continue unhindered.
This raised legal concerns especially from Mr Mutai's legal team which had expected the assembly to respect the court's directive.
While Speaker Patrick Mutai maintained that 31 votes were sufficient to meet the threshold, the 16 MCAs supporting the Governor argued that the correct number should be 32 out of the 47 MCAs.
“As per the records in the house, 31 MCAs who are present have voted in support of the motion. The motion is passed and Governor Mutai stands impeached by the County Assembly of Kericho,” ruled Speaker Mutai.
The speaker further justified the decision by referencing the house's tradition, stating that one-third of the assembly had always been counted as 16 members, with two-thirds, according to him, being equal to 31.
MCAs backing governor including Kapsoit ward MCA Paul Tarimbo Chirchir and Chaik ward MCA Korir, immediately contested this ruling.
“It is clear that out of the 47 MCAs, the mover of the motion should have garnered the support of 32 MCAs. As it stands, they missed the threshold by one member,” they argued.
The impeachment motion’s continuation despite the court injunction added another layer of legal complexity to the situation as Justice Sergon had issued interim conservatory orders preventing the County Assembly from debating or acting upon the notice of impeachment until the petition filed by the Governor was heard in court.
“The Assembly and the Speaker were duly served with the orders issued by Justice Joseph Sergon, but the house leadership has defied it. As a result of the court orders, we will not proceed as that would be contemptuous, and we will cite anyone who does not respect the orders of the court,”Mr Kigen said.
Mr Mutai’s governor’s legal team further argued that the proceedings were illegal as the court had clearly suspended any further action on the motion until the legal case was resolved.
Despite these legal objections, the Speaker allowed the impeachment debate to continue, forcing Governor Mutai’s legal representatives to walk out of the chamber after making their presentations.
“We will object to the manner in which the alluded witnesses will present their testimony through pseudo names and other means instead of their being identified by their real names and their faces shown. We suspect that you are punishing us for raising the objections,” Mr Tunen stated.
Mr Rogony accused Mr Mutai of failing to uphold the Constitution and overseeing mismanagement of county resources. Among the key accusations were gross violations of the Public Finance Management (PFM) Act, 2012, and the Leadership and Integrity Act.
“The Governor had an opportunity to defend himself but he chose to seek an injunction. The proceedings of the house on an impeachment cannot be stopped through an injunction,” Mr Rogony claimed.
He further claimed that the Governor had repeatedly defied court orders and can not therefore rush to court to seek to redeem his image on the matter.
Mr Erick Bii claimed that the Valuation Roll passed in 2019 by the County Assembly had not been implemented by Dr Mutai’s administration in what led to loss of revenue to the county.
The MCAs, led by Hezron Ngetich, claimed that the actual revenue collected was not reflective of what was recorded in the books of accounts.
Ms Fancy Korir and Ms Edna Tonui claimed that the health facilities were mismanaged with patients sharing beds.
With the impeachment confirmed, the matter will now move to the Senate for confirmation, concurrence or rejection.
It also remains to be seen the direction the court process will take in the interim over claims the assembly defied the injunctive orders.
