The Senate on Wednesday formally kicked off the impeachment proceedings against Kericho Governor Eric Mutai.
However, the impeachment hearing quickly hit a legal snag as Governor Mutai’s lawyers urged the Senate to dismiss the motion, arguing that the foundational requirements for impeachment were not met.
Represented by senior counsel Katwa Kigen and Peter Wanyama, Governor Mutai filed a preliminary objection challenging the validity of the vote in the Kericho County Assembly that triggered the impeachment motion.
“The nature of our preliminary objection, Mr. Speaker, sir, is to contend that there was no voting that took place, and therefore it implicates that the requirement, number one, that voting must have been done at the assembly, and number two, that a two-thirds threshold should have been achieved,” Kigen told the Senate.
Kigen argued that the Speaker of the County Assembly’s documentation, including an audit of voting logs, would show that the purported vote did not meet the constitutional threshold to trigger impeachment.
“It is our contention that the approach adopted by the Speaker in the County Assembly documents file, including the audit of the logs of the process, will show that indeed there was no voting system,” Kigen said.
He urged the Senate to consider their objection seriously before proceeding.
“Mr. Speaker, sir, I pray that you allow us to raise that preliminary objection to the effect that, indeed, no voting took place, and that a two-thirds threshold was not achieved, and therefore your jurisdiction has not been triggered at assembly,” Kigen added.
The objection is based on detailed evidence including affidavits from 18 Members of County Assembly (MCAs) who claim they did not participate in the vote.
The lawyers also pointed out that some MCAs’ votes were fraudulently recorded.
“We have identified particularly four MCAs whose votes were fraudulently captured as having voted in favor of the impeachment. They have said they did not vote,” said Kigen.
Adding further weight to the argument, Kigen explained that the electronic voting system used was flawed.
“The system is not accurate, verifiable, nor auditable. There was no gadget which could be pressed, and there was no button to be pressed,” he said. “What they did is send a link to mobile phones and asked MCAs to enter the link and do the voting.”
The lawyers also revealed that there were instances of multiple voting, with some MCAs casting votes more than once.
“There were three MCAs who voted twice. Not only is it reflected in the audit report, but it also is on audio as telling one of the people he voted for that, ‘please, let me give you some money in exchange for you indicating I voted for you,’” Kigen explained.
Further raising doubts about the process, the site used for the voting was reportedly taken down immediately after the vote and only briefly reinstated following the filing of the objection.
“Immediately after the voting, the site was pulled down. We understand that in response to our objection, an attempt was made to set up the same link again, but between the time of voting on August 15th and Monday, the site has been down,” he added.
Peter Wanyama, co-counsel for the Governor, also presented affidavits and evidence to support the claim that the voting process failed to comply with Standing Order 77 and 77A, which require proper electronic voting mechanisms and clear recording of abstentions.
The lawyers called on the Senate to dismiss the impeachment motion on the basis of these irregularities.
“We pray that you decline to accept this motion in the House,” Kigen concluded.
