Reprieve but no relief for Migori assembly Speaker Okoth
Embattled Migori Speaker Boaz Okoth whose impeachment has been quashed by the Labour court. He still has to contend with corruption charges.
A Kisumu Court has quashed the impeachment of Migori County Assembly Speaker Boaz Okoth.
But the decision may not mean much to him, as he remains suspended from office over graft charges.
Kisumu Employment and Labor Court Judge Justice Stephen Radido ruled that Mr Okoth’s removal from office violated his constitutional rights.
Justice Radido said Mr Okoth was not given time to respond to the allegations in the impeachment motion of February 8.
“A declaration is hereby issued that the decision to oust the Speaker was illegal, irregular and unconstitutional, the impeachment of the speaker was null and void,” ruled Justice Radido.
Mr Okoth sued on January 10, seeking to be reinstated.
He was evicted from office following an impeachment motion tabled by Muhuru Ward Representative Hevron Maira.
Members of the county assembly (MCAs) accused him of gross misconduct, after he allegedly broke into the finance office and stole files.
Breaking into office
This is after Mr Okoth was arrested and charged alongside seven other individuals for breaking into the office of Principal Finance Officer Evans Ogutu.
The MCAs argued that the Speaker held the assembly captive by his misconduct, barring them from conducting their oversight roles.
The ward representatives also claimed that he had delayed the payment of their salaries, an act that they said had reduced them to beggars.
On February 15, Mr Okoth got a reprieve after successfully securing a stay order suspending his impeachment until his case was determined.
Nine days later, Justice Radido overturned the ruling on the grounds that the Speaker was facing graft cases that were initially unknown to the court.
This was after a successful petition by MCAS and the assembly clerk in which they argued that Mr Okoth had failed to disclose to the court that he was facing multiple graft charges.
In a matter filed under a certificate of urgency, the respondents argued that there was an error in the previous ruling that allowed Mr Okoth to return to office.
They also alleged that besides two pending court cases, Mr Okoth had also fabricated facts in order to deceive the court and obtain stay orders.
"The petitioner's presence in office is also likely to interfere with the evidence which will be used against him during court proceedings," said the respondents’ lawyer Clifford Otieno in a past court session.
