• The judges said they cannot fault the county assembly and Senate for their decision to impeach Governor Mike Sonko.
• Court rules nomination, vetting and swearing-in of Kananu done within the law.
Image: EZEKIEL AMING'A
The High Court on Thursday dealt a double blow to former Nairobi Governor Mike Sonko as they upheld the decision by both the Nairobi County Assembly and Senate to impeach him.
The three-judge bench that delivered the ruling was presided over by Justice Said Chitembwe and assisted by Justices Wilfrida Okwany and Weldon Korir.
The same bench had earlier dealt another blow to Sonko after it ruled that the nomination vetting and swearing-in of Anne Kananu as Deputy Governor were done within the law.
The judges said they cannot fault the county assembly and Senate for their decision to impeach Governor Mike Sonko.
"They fully complied with the Constitution. We do not see any external hand in his impeachment," they ruled.
On Sonko's impeachment process, the court ruled that 88 MCAs signed the motion to impeach him and none of them came to court to dispute their signatures.
Chitembwe said that each MCA signed against his or her name and that only 44 were needed and had surpassed the required numbers.
The judges noted there was no requirement for MCAs to be physically present to vote for the motion as Sonko had argued saying virtual is a way of doing business considering the Covid-19 pandemic.
The court also noted that logging credentials were given to all the MCAs to log into the sessions from wherever they were.
Sonko had argued that the identity of 88 who voted for the motion did not follow the Constitution and lacked integrity but the judges dismissed his argument.
The court ruled Sonko was notified of the charges against him and the list of MCAs who supported the motion was also supplied which means that he was accorded an opportunity to respond to the charges.
The court also faulted his decision of taking the MCAs to Kwale County saying it was in violation of the laws of the county assembly.
Justice Chitembwe further said it was wrong for Sonko to take them to Kwale when they were supposed to be on duty.
On the issue of Sonko claiming that he was intoxicated when he signed the deed of transfer to the NMS at State House, the court said that was unbecoming of a state officer.
“We find that the conduct of Sonko does not meet the highest standard expected of a governor,” Judge Chitembwe ruled.
“The deed of transfer is an important document that cannot be seen to have been dealt with in circumstances where the governor was not sure of,” he said.
"This is in our view the violation of the trust bestowed upon the office of the governor by the electorate as it does not portray good governance, accountability and Integrity,” Chitembwe added.
KANANU'S ARGUMENT
The court dismissed the argument that Kananu had to be formally appointed to office after being vetting by Sonko and not an acting governor.
The court ruled that the acting governor can complete the process of her swearing-in and that there was nothing wrong with the swearing-in of Kananu.
Image: EZEKIEL AMINGA
"We find no error in the county assembly vetting Kananu," Okwany said.
The court ruled there was appropriate public participation in Kananu's vetting dismissing the arguments by Sonko that there was no public participation.
"The county assembly followed the requirements of public participation in vetting Kananu," Okwany said.
The court dismissed the argument that Kananu had to be formally appointed to office after being vetting by Sonko and not an acting governor.
The court ruled that the acting governor can complete the process of her swearing-in and that there was nothing wrong with the swearing-in of Kananu.
"Had Kananu been vetted before Sonkos impeachment then she would be the Deputy Governor. The pending vetting of Kananu before his impeachment can not be wished away," Okwany said.
"The speaker was allowed by law to bring that process of Kananu's nomination to fruition. Although a speaker acting as governor has no power to appoint a DG, this case was different because there was already a nominated DG in place."
The court ruled they had the jurisdiction to hear the matter revolving around the nomination of Deputy Governor Anne Kananu.
Sonko and all the other petitioners had opposed her nomination arguing that it was illegal.
Sonko said he had revoked her nomination in December 2020.
However, Kananu had argued that the withdrawal of her nomination by Sonko had an ill motive.
The court found that Sonko never withdrew Kananu's nomination as DG as he had alleged.
It ruled that the attempt to withdraw the nomination of Kananu by Sonko was unlawful.
Justice Okwany said that the nomination of Kananu had been received by IEBC and Sonko could not withdraw the nomination without the approval of the county assembly.
"The conduct of Hon Sonko was that of a person who was not in a hurry to nominate a deputy. We find it hard to believe that a governor can take instructions on phone on who to nominate as governor," she said.