Hello

Your subscription is almost coming to an end. Don’t miss out on the great content on Nation.Africa

Ready to continue your informative journey with us?

Hello

Your premium access has ended, but the best of Nation.Africa is still within reach. Renew now to unlock exclusive stories and in-depth features.

Reclaim your full access. Click below to renew.

Circus in Meru: MCAs table fifth ouster motion against governor Kawira Mwangaza

Meru Governor Kawira Mwangaza

Meru Governor Kawira Mwangaza when she appeared before a 11-member Senate special committee at Parliament Buildings in Nairobi last year. 

Photo credit: File | Nation Media Group

Political wrangling in Meru has turned into a vicious circle of conflict after a county assembly member tabled the fifth impeachment motion against Governor Kawira Mwangaza a day after withdrawing the fourth.

Nominated MCA Zipporah Kinya tabled another impeachment motion on Wednesday afternoon, triggering a fresh process to remove Ms Mwangaza, two days after the governor was granted a reprieve by the courts.

The Deputy Majority Leader in the Assembly had on Tuesday withdrawn her earlier motion to impeach Ms Mwangaza in what now appears to be a tactical move to avoid the legal hurdles.

In the new motion, Ms Kinya wants the Meru governor removed from office for gross violation of the Constitution and other laws, gross misconduct and abuse of office.

“The governor’s continued stay in office has persistently undermined effective and efficient service delivery and gravely hurt the interests of the people of the county.” Ms Kinya argues.

Immediately after the motion was tabled, Governor Mwangaza took to her official Facebook page to express her confidence that she would emerge victorious once again.

“Dead on inception…” Ms Mwangaza stated.

Governor Mwangaza's lawyer, Elias Mutuma, warned the assembly against tabling a new motion, saying it would be in contempt of court.

But the county assembly's lawyer, Ndegwa Njiru, said there were no orders preventing the county assembly from tabling a new impeachment motion.

In the new motion, some of the charges contained in the suspended motion have been removed, including illegal dismissal of a legal adviser and hiring a county lawyer without the approval of the county assembly.

The MCA accuses the governor of illegally revoking the appointment of the County Public Service Board Secretary Virginia Kagwiria, failing to appoint various autonomous board chairpersons and failing to implement county assembly resolutions.

Others include illegally dismissing several board executives and misleading the public by giving false information that MCAs had raised Sh86 million for the family of the late blogger Bernard Muthiani, popularly known as Sniper.
 
The Meru governor was on the spot for irregularly paying Sh74.3 million as emergency call allowances to doctors, employing 111 personal staff resulting in a wage bill of Sh500 million and paying about Sh103 million in salaries through a manual payroll.
 
She is also accused of paying a full salary to Christus Manyara, a public relations officer, despite being charged with murder, in contravention of the Public Service Commission's disciplinary manual.
 
On Tuesday, Ms Kinya withdrew the fourth impeachment motion, citing the collapse of the High Court-ordered alternative dispute resolution mechanism.
 
In a dramatic twist, Njuri Ncheke, which had been appointed to resolve the dispute, rejected an application for amicus curiae (friend of the court) filed by its secretary-general, Operations Josphat Murangiri.
 
Judge Linus Kassan had referred the matter to an alternative tribunal until August 20, 2024, when he was due to make a decision on whether to proceed with the impeachment process.

“Since the Njuri Ncheke elders have recused themselves from the assignment given by the court, I have decided to withdraw this motion. We cannot wait for August 20, while the people of Meru are crying and as public resources are being mismanaged,” Ms Kinya said.

The MCAs had expressed their dissatisfaction with the court ruling arguing that it had interfered with the legislative process.