End of Road for Sonko as Supreme Court Upholds Impeachment

Former Nairobi governor Mike Sonko’s political career has come to an end after the Supreme Court affirmed his impeachment.

Since the impeachment proceedings before the County Assembly and the Senate were correctly handled, the apex court judges, led by Chief Justice Martha Koome, ruled that Sonko was legitimately removed from office.

This therefore means that, in accordance with the terms of Article 75(3) of the Constitution, the electoral commission will have to reconsider its decision to clear him for the Mombasa governorship election.

The clause prohibits anyone who has been impeached from holding any other governmental office at any point in time.

Read: Sonko Finally Cleared to Vie for Mombasa Governorship

“We come to the irresistible conclusion that the impeachment of the appellant was in compliance with the Constitution and the law. We therefore find no merit in the Petition of Appeal. It bears mentioning in conclusion that Chapter Six of the Constitution was not enacted in vain or for cosmetic reasons,” said the Supreme Court.

The decision was rendered a day after the former county boss received a nomination certificate from the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) permitting him to run for the position of governor of Mombasa.

A condensed version of the judges’ decision to rejecting Sonko’s appeal, in which he sought to overturn the rulings of the High Court and Court of Appeal upholding his impeachment, contained seven reasons.

A second copy of the decision that includes the full list of reasons will be made public later, according to the Apex court.

Read Also: Win for Sonko As Court Orders IEBC To Clear Him for Mombasa Governor Race

The judges rejected Sonko’s arguments that his removal from office was unlawful, saying the former governor was even given enough time and space to address the accusations against him both at the county assembly and in court.

Additionally, the seven judge bench denied his assertions that there was insufficient public involvement in the impeachment procedure.

“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,” said the judges.

The court noted that there were four counts against Sonko in the impeachment procedure.

Read Also: Sonko, US-based Bishop Attempt To Broker Truce Between Uhuru, Ruto

“The County Assembly, the Senate and the High Court and Court of Appeal were convinced that the charges were proved to the standard required in such circumstances. No error for their analysis and conclusion has been presented,” the Supreme Court stated.

It was determined that by removing the governor from office, the people exercised their authority through their democratically elected representatives to protect and defend Chapter Six of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court’s lack of jurisdiction to hear the appeal was another factor in dismissing it.

“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,” it said.

Read Also: Confusion as Wiper Picks Kisauni MP Mbogo As Sonko’s Replacement in Mombasa Governor Race

In the 2017 elections, Sonko won a five-year term as governor of Nairobi City County.

As soon as he took office, he held the position of governor until his impeachment on December 17, 2020.

The Senate adopted the resolution to remove him from office after finding him guilty of misusing public funds, repeatedly threatening and abusing County Executive Committee members, and illegally utilizing public funds to cover his daughter’s trip to New York City.

According to his social media posts, he was also found guilty of crimes related to his continued and intentional use of, publicity for, and publication of abusive and derogatory language.

Additionally, he frequently went off on rants in which he praised abuses and behaved in a way that denigrated the Governor’s office.