Meru Governor, Kawira Mwangaza filed a petition seeking to challenge county Assembly Speaker, Solomon Ayub Bundi’s conduct after presiding over her impeachment motion on Wednesday, December 14.
Speaking exclusively to Kenyans.co.ke, Mwangaza’s Lawyer Elias Mutuma alleged that the speaker ignored High Court’s orders which barred debate over the impeachment motion until the matter is heard and determined on Tuesday, December 20.
The lawyer noted that the vote on the impeachment motion should not have occurred if the speaker would have obeyed court orders.
Speaker Bundi allowed the MCAs to table a new impeachment motion against Mwangaza, which was debated and unanimously voted upon.
“The speaker was in violation of conservatory orders by the High Court, which expressly barred debate and vote on the impeachment motion,” Lawyer Mutuma explained.
While delivering the ruling on November 30, 2022, Justice Thripsisa Cherere warned the Speaker against entertaining such a debate in the assembly until the matter is heard and determined. In the judgment, the judge cited that the impeachment process was flawed.
According to Justice Cherere, Meru ward representatives failed to follow proper procedure in initiating the motion against the first-term governor.
“Upon considering the application and the preliminary objection and after hearing the presentations of counsel, this court finds that the procedure adopted by the respondents to process the proposed motion of the impeachment of the petitioner is flawed and has the effect of violating her constitutional rights,” she ordered.
The Meru High Court Judge had issued an injunction preventing the initial impeachment motion against Mwangaza from commencing.
“Under the powers donated to this court by Article 23(3) of the Constitution, it is therefore hereby ordered that the impeachment motion dated Nov 21, 2022, by members of the first respondent scheduled for debate on November 30, 2022, at 10 am is flawed and is quashed,” Justice Cherere ruled.
Cherere stated that the court is mandated to deal with threatened violations of any person before they happen and to give appropriate relief including conservatory orders in terms of Article 23 (3) of the constitution.
Article 23 (3) underscores the authority of courts to uphold and enforce the Bill of Rights.
“The High Court has jurisdiction, in accordance with Article 165, to hear and determine applications for redress of a denial, violation or infringement of, or threat to, a right or fundamental freedom in the Bill of Rights,” states Article 23 (3).
The impeachment motion which was tabled by Abogeta West MCA Denis Kiogora who is also the minority whip in the house was supported by 68 out of the total 69 MCAs in the assembly.
While acknowledging the flaws in the process, Matunga Member of Parliament Kassim Tandaza asked Governor Mwangaza to find better approaches to solving the matter.
“Kawira got it wrong from the beginning because she did not move fast enough to consolidate her support after beating Kiraitu, who no one knew would be beaten,” Tandaza explained.
Source: kENYANS.CO.KE
