Judge blocks move to impeach Waiguru

What you need to know:

  • The order suspending all impeachment motions was given by Justice Joseph Onguto after the Commission for the Implementation of the Constitution went to court to question the fairness of the parliamentary rules that allow MPs to impeach Cabinet secretaries.
  • Justice Onguto’s ruling was issued as Mr Keter and Makueni MP Daniel Maanzo prepared to submit the motion to impeach Ms Waiguru to the National Assembly Speaker for approval.

A judge has barred MPs from debating a motion to impeach Devolution Cabinet Secretary Anne Waiguru.

The order suspending all impeachment motions was given by Justice Joseph Onguto after the Commission for the Implementation of the Constitution went to court to question the fairness of the parliamentary rules that allow MPs to impeach Cabinet secretaries.

Standing Order 66 of the National Assembly spells out the procedure for removing a CS. The High Court order means that plans by Nandi Hills MP Alfred Keter to bring the motion to remove Ms Waiguru from office are now in limbo.

Under the rule, Mr Keter was allowed to collect signatures from fellow MPs to introduce the motion for debate.

“An order is hereby issued directed at the Speaker of the National Assembly and to the effect that all Motions brought under provisions of Standing Order 66 of the National Assembly shall be held in abeyance and stand suspended until this petition is determined,” ruled Justice Onguto.

PRESSURE TO WITHDRAW

However, the impeachment motion against President Uhuru Kenyatta by the Opposition is not affected by the order and Cord lawmakers are free to go ahead with it.

Justice Onguto’s ruling was issued as Mr Keter and Makueni MP Daniel Maanzo prepared to submit the motion to impeach Ms Waiguru to the National Assembly Speaker for approval.

Mr Keter had vowed not to withdraw the motion despite pressure from his Jubilee coalition, which has distanced itself from it and claimed that the MP was acting at the behest of the Opposition.

The CIC has filed an urgent case to save Cabinet secretaries from impeachment, arguing that Section 66 of the Standing Orders was unconstitutional and should be declared null and void.

Standing Order 66 provides the procedure for removing a Cabinet secretary, and spells out the process that starts by a presentation of a motion by a member of the National Assembly and supported by at least 88 MPs — a quarter of the members.

THREAT TO TEAR LIST

Yesterday, Mr Maanzo said at least five MPs from the United Republican Party had withdrawn their signatures and were no longer willing to support the Motion. Mr Maanzo said the MPs “deleted” their signatures by scribbling over them until it was no longer possible to tell who had signed.

“Ukicheza anakwambia atararua list yote (They threatened to tear the whole list),” said Mr Maanzo, who declined to name his colleagues on the basis of mutual respect and the fact that they had already sought to distance themselves from the bid.

Mr Maanzo said Ms Waiguru should step aside voluntarily like other Cabinet secretaries alleged to have been involved in corruption.

“Although people have been intimidated and others forced to withdraw their signatures, she should just step aside. Other than violating the Constitution, she has also not distributed the resources under her equitably as required by the Constitution,” he said.

Mr Maanzo said that among the grounds cited in the motion was that NYS programmes had not been fairly distributed in various parts of the country.

Others are gross violation of the Constitution in the management of the National Youth Service leading to loss of public funds, financial irregularities, concealing information to perpetuate financial impropriety and improper procurement and non-existent supplies, which amounts to fraud.

FAIR HEARING

Ms Waiguru has also been accused of “misuse of her office and violation of the law by abusing, intimidating and threatening public servants under her jurisdiction”.

Her treatment of NYS Director-General Nelson Githinji and her appointment of Mr Adan Harakhe in unclear circumstances have also come under scrutiny.

The Cabinet secretary would be given a chance to defend herself both at the 11-member committee and before the whole House when the report is debated.

In his sworn statement against the introduction of the motion, CIC chairman Charles Nyachae argued that the provisions in the Standing Orders would not accord any CS a fair hearing before the National Assembly. He said the Standing Orders were also inconsistent with Article 50 of the Constitution which gives every accused person the right to a fair trial.

INDEPENDENT BODY

“The process of dismissal of a Cabinet Secretary by the National Assembly as operationalised by Standing Order 66 abridges the right of a CS to a fair trial and the right to have a dispute resolved by an independent and impartial process,” said Mr Nyachae in his affidavit.

According to the commission’s lawyer, Mr Paul Nyamodi, the provisions allowed the National Assembly to act as the complainant, investigator, prosecutor and executor of its own resolutions.

“All constitutional provisions should be read together, which will prove that the commencement of removal of a CS must come from an independent body rather than the National Assembly,” he said.

The CIC is seeking a declaration that provisions of the National Assembly Standing Order 66 are void to the extent that it is inconsistent with the right to a fair trial, which should be accorded to Cabinet secretaries.

Justice Onguto directed National Assembly Speaker Justin Muturi, who is listed as the respondent, to file his reply before the hearing on October 26.