Impeached governors not eligible to run for office
Former Nairobi governor Mike Sonko (3rd left) displays his certificate after he was picked to run for Mombasa governor on a Wiper ticket. Kisauni MP Ali Mbogo will be his running mate.
What you need to know:
- Kenyans wanted the provisions on leadership and integrity to have substantive bite and not be mere suggestions.
- Chapter Six of the Constitution was informed by Kenya’s history of abuse of office by state officers to enrich self, family and friends.
The Constitution places the highest premium on integrity for state officers, both appointed and elected. Chapter Six, on leadership and integrity, details the requirements on their conduct, financial probity and restrictions while in office and the attendant sanctions in default.
Kenyans wanted the provisions on leadership and integrity to have substantive bite and not be mere suggestions. They intended that the provisions be implemented and enforced. They desired that these collective commitment to ensure good governance be put into practice. The chapter was informed by Kenya’s history of abuse of office by state officers to enrich self, family and friends with abandon.
However, the implementation of the chapter was compromised from the outset. In 2011, the 10th Parliament enacted a watered-down version of the Leadership and Integrity Bill in what is considered a deliberate attempt at sabotaging the enforcement of the strict ethical and moral requirements.
Over the past few years though, the concept has gained prominence in the courts with interpretation and application of Chapter Six appearing to adopt the letter and spirit of the Constitution.
The High Court, in the cases involving Governors Moses Lenolkulal (Samburu) and Okoth Obado (Migori) and former governors Mike Mbuvi Sonko (Nairobi ) and Ferdinand Waititu (Kiambu) concurred with the lower court’s bail condition that they could not access their public offices until their individual cases were heard and determined.
Abuse of office
That was misinterpreted to mean the suspects had been suspended form office pursuant to Section 62 of the Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Act (ACECA) — which, essentially, was not the case as was later determined by the Supreme Court.
In the Lenolkulal case, Justice Mumbi Ngugi asked pertinent questions about Section 62(6) of ACECA — like whether state officers “should remain in the same offices they are alleged to have abused and used to their personal enrichment, to the detriment of the public they are supposed to serve”.
In the Waititu case, which has been litigated up to the Supreme Court, was the question whether “the barring of a governor from accessing his/her office pending his/her prosecution of corruption offences amounted to his removal from office”.
Assuming such a governor is privileged to complete their first term, are they eligible for re-election? If yes, does the county offices cease to be a crime scene during the governor’s new term?
Mr Sonko and Mr Waititu were later impeached and, consequently, removed from office pursuant to Article 181 of the Constitution for, among others, financial impropriety and violation of Chapter Six.
Article 193 of the Constitution disqualifies from being elected an MCA — a condition for the governor ticket — a person who has been found to have misused or abused a state office or public office or contravened Chapter Six. In fact, they should be forever barred from holding state or public office.
Mr Mbiti, an advocate of the High Court of Kenya, is an anti-corruption expert. [email protected]. @MwongelaMbiti
