The Council of Governors has taken a hit after the High Court rejected its objection that county bosses be spared criminal and civil proceedings during their tenure.
According to the complaint, the courts have the Director of The prosecutor’s office and the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission have been biased against Council members by forcing those accused of corruption to stay away from their offices, which they believe is not the case for other state officials.
So did the Council Court to say whether it has jurisdiction to rule on whether governors charged with crimes should resign.
Read: The Complicated Money Trails In The Governor Bribery Inquiry
That required the court to judge for itself whether court-imposed detention conditions that deny governors access to their offices and resign are constructive posts thebung.
The case was consolidated with another case when former Nairobi Governor Mike Sonkowho asked the court to see ok in his arrest and detention.
Constitutional rights< /h2>
Mr Sonko said the way he was treated violated his constitutional rights.
In a belated judgment yesterday, the court cited the Supreme Court’s decision in the by the former governor Case filed by Kiambu, Ferdinand Waititu, which settled the issue of the constructive removal of the district bosses, was finally decided by the Supreme Court. This decision is binding,” said Justices James Wakiaga, Esther Maina and Grace Nzioka.
Mr Waititu was charged with corruption in 2019 and released on bail. He was denied access to his office for the entire duration of the case.
Read: When Corruption Is a Family Affair: In Sh8 Billion Transplant Cases
He fought sued the Supreme Court for suspension, arguing that the bail periods were tantamount to impeachment.
But the Supreme Court ruled that denying access to office did not amount to impeachment. It noted that the ground on which a governor may be removed from office is set out in Article 33 of the Constitution. The answer is negative. Denying a governor access to office while a criminal case is pending cannot be tantamount to impeachment.
It was a condition that impeachment be done in accordance with the procedure set out in Article should be 33 of the Constitution.
In their briefs, the governors noted that there was no law providing for their impeachment, noting that the decision had so far been left to the discretion of the DPP and the anti-corruption courts to ban them from their offices indefinitely.
Since 2018, six governors have been banned from their offices after being charged with offenses related to corruption and economic crimes.
With the exception of Mr Waititu, who was charged after his indictment, the other five are still denied access to their offices. They are Moses Lenolkulal (Samburu), Gidion Mbuvi Sonko (Nairobi), Okoth Obado (Migori), Muthomi Njuki (Tharaka-Nithi) and Ali Korane (Garissa).
The three judges noted that they bound were the judgment of Judge Mumbi Ngugi, which ordered the accused to be banned from office.
They argued that the issue of banning from office was not limited to governors but applied to all indicted state officials, including district employees .
Ban from office
“The judiciary has ordered the accused to be removed from office. If necessary, they may be escorted to their office by the investigating officer or other authorized officer so they can sort out their belongings,” the jury said.
The three justices also denied a request from the governor for a statement that that the DPP, EACC have no constitutional powers to remove governors from office. We asked if they had actually done so.
The court denied the claim for damages relating to Mr. Sonko’s arrest, noting that evidence is required, so we cannot pray for damages.