Sonko Blocked From Participating in Next Month’s Elections

The appeal concerns the impeachment of the appellant from the office of the Governor of Nairobi City County. The appellant called upon the Court to set aside and/or declare the resolution passed by Senate on 17^th December, 2020 for his removal from office through impeachment to be inconsistent with and contrary to the Constitution; that due process and the procedure for such impeachment as delineated under Article 181 of the Constitution, Section 33 of the County Governments Act, 2012 and the Nairobi City County Assembly Standing Orders was not complied with.

The challenge of his impeachment before the High Court and Court of Appeal was unsuccessful.

In the appeal before the Supreme Court, the Court listed the following 7 issues for determination:

1. whether the Court’s jurisdiction was properly invoked;
2. whether due process was followed by the County Assembly in the removal of the appellant from the office of Governor;

• whether the appellant was accorded adequate time and facility to respond to the charges against him both at the county assembly and in the Senate;

1. whether it was mandatory to verify the impeachment motion by affidavits or other statements on oath by members of the County Assembly who allegedly supported the motion;
2. whether public participation was undertaken;
3. whether the charges were substantiated to the prescribed standard warranting removal of the appellant from the office; and

• whether the sovereignty of the people envisaged under Article 1 of the Constitution was respected and protected in the removal process

Upon consideration, the Supreme Court has dismissed the appeal by Hon. Sonko for the reasons that:

1. Issue 1: The Court lacked jurisdiction to determine the appeal. However, in view of the public interest nature of the dispute, the need for due guidance to the judicial process and to the courts below and for the sake of posterity and development of jurisprudence the Court (the majority) has decided to settle all the pertinent questions the appeal raises, instead of downing tools on account of want of jurisdiction.
2. Issue 2: The impeachment proceedings before the County Assembly and the Senate were properly conducted in accordance with Article 181 of the Constitution, Section 33 of the County Governments Act and Standing Orders of the Assembly and the Senate.
3. Issue 3: The appellant was accorded adequate time and facility to respond to the charges against him both at the county assembly and in the Senate.
4. Issue 4: That the form of verification envisaged in the context of an impeachment motion is a signed copy of the motion by the Mover and verified by the signatures of at least a third of the members in support of the motion and not an affidavit or any form of disposition.
5. Issue 5: There was sufficient public participation, the intended tabling of the motion for the impeachment of the appellant was not only advertised in a local daily newspaper with wide circulation, in response to which people submitted memoranda, but also a survey was conducted in the county in the form of questionnaires. This was in addition to the fact that the proceedings were conducted in public.
6. Issue 6: There were four counts of impeachable charges against the appellant. The County Assembly, the Senate and the two superior courts below were convinced that the charges were proved to the standard required in such circumstances. No error for their analysis and conclusion has been presented.
7. Issue 7: In the instant situation, the people exercised their power through their democratically elected representatives to uphold and defend Chapter Six of the Constitution.

Chapter Six of the Constitution was not enacted in vain or for cosmetic reasons.

The authority assigned to a State officer is a public trust to be exercised in a manner that demonstrates respect for the people; brings honour to the nation and dignity to the office; and promotes public confidence in the integrity of the office. It vests in the State officer the responsibility to serve the people, rather than the power to rule them.

The detailed reasons for the Court’s determination will be delivered on Notice.

­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..