Why Senate rejected Mwangaza's impeachment

The Senate on Friday rejected the impeachment of Meru Governor Kawira Mwangaza on the basis that the charges were not substantiated.

In a report tabled by the Committee chairperson Kakamega Senator Boni Khalwale, it said Meru MCAs had failed to provide enough evidence to back their allegations.

Mwangaza was accused of nepotism, illegal appointments, unlawful dismissal of the constitution and statutory functions of county organs. 

She was also accused of appointing her husband Murega Baicu as the Hustlers Ambassador and Youth Patron alongside other roadside appointments of county workers.

Appearing before the 11-member committee on Tuesday, she denied all charges.

On the charge of nepotism, illegal appointments, unlawful dismissal and usurping of the constitution, the MCAs had alleged that the appointment of the First Gentleman, Murega Baichu into the non-existent positions of Meru Youth Service and Meru Hustler Ambassador was a gross violation of the County Government Act.

They also termed it nepotism and an attempt to usurp the powers of the Youth Service.

In its response, the Committee said there could not be appointments made to an office that did not exist.

"In any event, no evidence was submitted to prove any of the alleged county office appointments by the governor," it said.

In the matter of the reappointment of Rufus Miriti as the county secretary without the approval of the county assembly, Kawira said she did not appoint him, but rather expressed interest to work with him.

Miriti was in the former regime.

"From the evidence adduced, the governor did make public pronouncements reappointing Rufus Miriti as the county secretary," the report reads.

The MCAs had presented a Facebook screenshot purporting the "appointment".

The MCAs had further accused Mwangaza of usurping and trashing the Constitutional and statutory functions of the County Assembly, the Meru County Public Service Board and the Meru County Youth Service Board

This, they said was through the appointment of her husband as Youth Patron.

"No evidence was adduced to indicate the functions of the “patron of Meru Youth Service” that usurped the powers of the Meru Youth Service Board," the Committee said.

The second charge was on incitement, bullying, vilification and misleading of campaigns against other leaders.

The Senate Panel's response to the aforementioned accusation acknowledged the discord between the governor and the MCAs.

"There is discord and public disagreements between the Governor and the County Assembly Minority Leader with accusations and counter-accusations," they said.

The particulars included holding public vilification, incitement and humiliation rallies against MCAs and other elected leaders, falsely accusing the elected leaders of cartelism, blackmail, greed, corruption and intimidation.

Others were holding public vilification, incitement and humiliation rallies against the Catholic Church and the Catholic clergy and inciting the public against the Members of the Assembly and other elected leaders while knowing that such conduct can easily trigger violent reactions and cause serious breaches of the peace.

On the matter of church humiliation, the particulars included inciting the public against the Roman Catholic Church (“the Catholic Church”) and the Bishop of the Catholic Diocese of Meru, Salesius Mugambi (“the Catholic Bishop”), at a public rally held at the former Igoji Boys Secondary School and falsely accusing the Catholic Church of grabbing public land among others.

During the Committee hearing, the County Assembly submitted the witness statement of one Fr. Elias Kinoti, a Priest in the Catholic Diocese of Meru, Chaplain of the Meru University of Science of Technology and a member of the inaugural Meru Youth Service Board.

Kinoti testified that he did not represent the Catholic Diocese of Meru.

"The alleged victim of vilification, that is the Catholic Diocese of Meru, did not send any formal representative or submit any documents to the County Assembly or the Senate to complain of the alleged vilification," the Committee said.

"The evidence adduced demonstrated that the land belongs to the County Government of Meru."

On the third charge of forceful entry into the assembly precincts and mobilisation of unlawful riots against members of the assembly, the report said the evidence presented was not enough, pointing out that the incident when the MCAs walked out of the House appeared to be pre-meditated.

The MCAs had also accused her of violation of the public finance management laws.

On the accusation that she directed Meru Teaching and Referral Hospital to spend all revenue at source, the Senate panel said there was evidence that the Meru Teaching and Referral Hospital is a semi-autonomous government agency pursuant to the Meru County Teaching and Referral Hospital Board Act, 2019.

"Section 14(1)(b) as read together with section 14(2) and (3) of the Meru County Teaching and Referral Hospital Board Act allow the utilization of funds collected by the Meru Teaching and Referral Hospital to defray its expenses," it added.

"However, no evidence was adduced to confirm that the Hospital retained any funds collected and utilised it at the source."

She was also accused of directing county government officers to participate in furthering and advancing the interests of Baite TV.

"The evidence adduced did not support this allegation," the Committee said.

The County Assembly had presented a letter from the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission in which the Commission acknowledged receipt of various complaints raised against the governor. 

Further, the governor was accused of misconduct relating to the nomination of County Executive Committee members.

The Committee said the governor submitted names to the County Assembly for approval and some of the nominees were rejected.

"After the County Assembly rejected some of the nominees for the position of member of the CECs, the Governor reorganized the structure of the county government ostensibly to facilitate the smooth running of the county government," it added.

Giving the verdict, Khalwale said they had found the evidence not substantiated.

"The Committee having investigated the matter by its mandate under section 33(4) of the County Governments Act and standing order 80(2) of the Senate Standing Orders reports to the Senate that it finds that the five Charges against the Governor of Meru County have not been substantiated," he said.