The Impeachment of a Governor: A New Era of Accountability?

The conditions for removal of Governors are stipulated in Article 181 of the constitution; the article states that governors may be removed from office for, gross violations of the constitution and laws; where there are serious reasons for believing the county governor has committed a crime under national or international law; gross misconduct, abuse of office and/or physical or mental incapacity that prevents him/her from performing the duties of a governor.

Less than a year since governors were elected the members of Embu County Assembly have successfully managed to invoke the Article to remove their Governor from office.  This was the first ever instance of impeachment proceedings in the history of the Republic of Kenya; and the first process of this nature under the constitution.  The removal of a governor from office is significant as for what is says about accountability, checks and balances within the new devolved systems, and the potential impact it could have for holding State officers accountable at all levels of government.

Procedurally after the Speaker of the Senate received the notice for removal the Governor and Deputy Governor from the County Assembly, he convened a meeting of the Senate to hear the charges against the governor.  The Senate convened a Special Sitting the 4th February, 2014 and a motion for Removal of the Governor and Deputy Governor of the Embu County passed. The Motion led to the formation a Special Committee whose mandate was to investigate the proposed removal  the Governor and Deputy Governor of Embu County and to report to the Senate on whether the allegations against the two to have been substantiated.

Last week the Committee found that, “there were procurement irregularities and malpractices and outright violation of the relevant laws,” by the Governor, specifically violations of constitution Public procurement Act Procurement and Disposal Act 2005 and the Public Finance Management Act. The in the summary of its report to the Senate the Special Committee stated that:

“While primary liability for violations of procurement laws may lie with individual officers, Article 73 of the Constitution which provides for the responsibility of leadership as read with Article 179 of the Constitution and Section 33 (f) of the County Governments Act, 2012, lead to the conclusion that the Governor will be held liable for violations that occurred during his watch and in respect of which he or she does not take any action.” The Committee also reported that, “the Auditor-General also convinced the Committee that the attempt by the Governor to shift blame to subordinates could not hold even if those subordinates were the accounting officers, because finally, the buck not only stops at the doorstep of the Governor, but the Constitution expects the Governor to be alive to the running of the county and to ensure that he has systems in place that monitor those accounting officers to his satisfaction. This is something which the Governor said: I do not know, it was not me, I did not have to know. Then we wondered why he is in that office. Mr. Speaker, Sir, for that reason, this House will be helping Governor Martin Nyaga Wambora by saving him the trouble and pain of having to be in a office where he has no idea what is going on. This office will give him high blood pressure and ulcers for nothing. Instead you will be giving him preventive treatment.” (Senate Hansard 14.2.2014)

Could this finding of the Senate against the Governor spell the end of buck passing by State Officers in leadership positions? It would certainly be timely given the number of procurement scandals happening at the moment. In an unsurprising move and possibly in effort to curb future impeachments Governors have asked the Supreme for an advisory opinion on whether the Senate has the mandate to summon them over county finances.

Posted by Mzalendo Editor on Feb. 20, 2014

Categories:  No tags