• Call dropped over lengthy processes involved in removing the substantive Speaker.
• A two-thirds majority needed to vote to approve a motion of no confidence.
A plan by the Jubilee Kieleweke faction to pass a vote of no confidence on Speaker Justin Muturi is no longer in the works.
The ouster was to be preceded by moving an agenda at the party National Executive Committee to remove the Speaker as a member of the party.
But the supposed architects of the removal, said to be neither from the Executive nor the National Assembly, are yet to make a move on the proposal.
Reports are that the team coiled upon realising the timing was bad and that they may not get the required two –thirds majority to pass the impeachment motion.
Parliament has five times failed to raise a quorum for enacting bills which require the support of 233 members, save for the vote on the BBI bill.
National Assembly authorities intimated to the Star that they had heard of the plot and were ready to facilitate the motion but were yet to get any as of close of business Tuesday.
Even the Kieleweke-leaning lawmakers who were linked to the plot on Wednesday denied the existence of such a plan.
Several MPs equally told the Star at Parliament Buildings that they were unaware of any signatures being collected to impeach the Speaker.
The ouster of Muturi, who has thrown his hat in the ring in the President Uhuru Kenyatta succession, was argued to be grounded on his perceived dalliance with DP William Ruto.
National Assembly Majority Leader Amos Kimuya pointed out that some mischievous persons were pushing the agenda for unknown reasons.
“It is not feasible to impeach the Speaker, especially at this stage. Someone or some people are just being mischievous,” Kimunya said.
Ndaragwa MP Jeremiah Kioni, however, said the removal of the Speaker’s name from membership of the Jubilee Party was still being considered.
“It is too late in the day. If it was earlier on in the term, then one could engage in that kind of activity. The effort is misdirected. It is an imagination,” Kioni said.
The lawmaker argued that the “Speaker has already impeached himself by the things he is doing in public.”
“Without a doubt, we will want to remove his name from the party. But on the seat, he removed himself long ago. It has nothing to do with us wanting to but about him agreeing to leave,” the MP said.
Kioni said the NEC would, although, expunge DP Ruto’s name from the party for violating the outfit’s principles and the Constitution but wouldn’t move an impeachment motion against him.
“We have no desire to put the country in such kind of spin. Ruto is a deputy president who has violated the principles of the party constitution. It is upon him to deal with his conscience,” Kioni said.
Garissa Township MP Aden Duale laughed off the impeachment talk saying they would first want to see the grounds of removal.
“In the air, the only thing people are saying is that Speaker Muturi has shown interest to be a candidate in 2022. I want to see the grounds first and the grounds are nowhere,” he said.
The former Majority leader added that even if the proponents were to proceed, the effort would amount to naught owing to the tedious process.
“The threshold for impeachment is so high and the grounds are also very high. Before we even discuss signature collection, the grounds must be so high. I don’t see any king that would warrant the removal of the speaker,” Duale said.
The Standing Orders provide that a motion to remove the speaker shall be supported by at least one-third of all the members.
A speaker may thus be removed on grounds of serious violation of the Constitution, more so Chapter Six; gross misconduct, physical or mental incapacity, incompetence or bankruptcy.
Before giving the notice of the motion, the member is required to deliver a copy of the proposed motion to the clerk stating the grounds.
The motion is then sent to the plenary for a vote after which a select committee of 11 MPs would be appointed to investigate the matter.
“The committee shall, within seven days, investigate and report to the assembly whether it finds the allegations against the speaker or deputy speaker to be substantiated,” the House rules read.
The speaker or deputy speaker has the right to appear and be represented before the select committee during its investigations, it adds.
If the allegations are unsubstantiated, no further proceedings take place, but in the event grounds are established the speaker is furnished with the report and evidence adduced.
MPs may thereafter afford the speaker an opportunity to be heard before taking a vote to approve or reject the resolution requiring the removal.
(Edited by Bilha Makokha)