This legal research paper investigates the gubernatorial impeachment motions, proceedings and cases in the Kenyan devolved system since 2013 when the first governments took power under the new Constitution of Kenya, 2010. The constitutional, legal and institutional framework for the removal of county Governors from office through impeachment in the Kenyan devolved system is examined. The removal process of county Governors effectively for the realization of the objects of devolution in Kenya is accessed. Nigerian jurisprudence on gubernatorial impeachment is used because it provides instructive lessons on interpreting the Kenyan constitutional provisions on the removal of county Governors through impeachment.
The result of this study is that the gubernatorial impeachment process in the Kenyan devolved system is a three-way process. The starting point is the County Assembly (CA) where the Member of County Assembly can table an impeachment motion against the county Governor. Secondly, should the impeachment motion succeed against the sitting county Governor, the Speaker of the CA forwards the resolution to the Senators who then investigate the impeachment claims made against the county Governor. Lastly, where the county Governor facing impeachment proceedings feels that their rights are being violated and or the CA and Senate are not following the stipulated procedure, they are allowed to access the courts to be granted appropriate reliefs. The jurisprudence emerging from the Kenyan courts has been useful in this research. Nigerian jurisprudence on gubernatorial impeachment has also been useful on providing instructive lessons on how the Kenyan constitutional provisions on the removal of county Governors from office can be interpreted. This legal research paper concludes that for the intended purpose of gubernatorial impeachment to be achieved, the people must not only be informed and involved in the removal process of their county Governors but the CAs and Senators must also demonstrate political goodwill while conducting this constitutional process. This is because one of the ways through which the objects of devolution can be achieved in the Kenyan devolved system is through accountable governance from the State Officer.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
1.1 Background of the Study
1.2 Statement of the problem
1.3 Research Questions
1.4 Research Hypothesis
1.5 Research Objectives
1.6 Theoretical Framework
1.7 Justification of the Study
1.8 Scope of the Study
1.9 Research Methodology
1.10 Limitations of the Study
1.11 Literature Review
1.12 Chapter Breakdown
2. Constitutional, Legal and Institutional Framework for the Impeachment of County Governors
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Constitutional and Legal Framework for the Impeachment of County Governors
2.2.1 The Constitution of Kenya, 2010
2.2.1.1 National Values and Principles of Governance
2.2.1.2 Grounds for the Impeachment of County Governors
2.2.1.3 Leadership and Integrity
2.2.1.4 Values and Principles of Public Service
2.2.1.5 Enactment of Legislation providing for the Procedure of Removal of a County Governor
2.2.2 The County Governments Act, 2012
2.2.3 The Senate Standing Orders
2.2.4 County Assemblies’ Standing Orders
2.3 Institutional Framework for the Impeachment of County Governors
2.3.1 The Role of the County Assembly (CA)
2.3.1.1 The Role of the CA to Initiate the Impeachment Motion against the Governor
2.3.1.2 The Role of the CA to Inform the County Governor of the Impeachment Charges and Hear the Governor
2.3.1.3 The Role of the CA to either Pass or Fail the Impeachment Resolution
2.3.1.4 The Role of the Speaker of the respective CA to inform the Speaker of the Senate of the Impeachment Resolution
2.3.1.5 The Role of the CA to appear before the Senate
2.3.2 The Role of the Senate
2.3.2.1 The Role of the Speaker of the Senate to Inform the Senators of the Impeachment Resolution
2.3.2.2 The Role of the Senate to appoint a Special Committee
2.3.2.3 The Role of the Special Committee or Senate in plenary to investigate the Impeachment Charges against the Governor
2.3.2.4 The Role of the Senate to Hear the Governor facing the Impeachment Charges
2.3.2.5 The Role of the Senate to either Pass or Fail the Impeachment Resolution
2.3.3 The Role of the Courts
2.3.3.1 The Role of the Courts to Interpret Impeachment Provisions
2.3.3.2 The Role of the Courts to Supervise the Process of Impeachment
2.4 Conclusion
3. The Emerging Issues from the Gubernatorial Impeachment Cases in Kenya since 2013
3.1 Introduction
3.2 The Emerging Issues from the Gubernatorial Impeachment Cases in Kenya since 2013
3.2.1 Whether Impeachment is a legal or political process
3.2.1.1 Justiciability of the Removal Process
3.2.2 What amounts to gross misconduct, gross violation of the Constitution or any other written law and abuse of office?
3.2.3 The Right to Public Participation in the Removal Process of a County Governor through Impeachment
3.2.3.1 What amounts to Public Participation?
3.2.3.2 Limitation of Time for the Public to be able to participate in the Gubernatorial Impeachment Process
3.3 Conclusion
4. Conclusion and Recommendations
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Conclusion
4.3 Recommendations
Research Objectives & Key Topics
This research paper examines the constitutional, legal, and institutional framework for the impeachment of County Governors in Kenya. It critically investigates how this oversight mechanism has been utilized—and at times misused—since the start of the devolved system in 2013, aiming to propose reforms that align with the objects of devolution, such as accountable governance and public participation.
- Legal and institutional framework for gubernatorial impeachment in Kenya.
- Challenges of legislative oversight and potential for political abuse.
- The role of the judiciary and the justiciability of impeachment proceedings.
- The necessity and implementation of public participation in removal processes.
- Comparative analysis of Nigerian constitutional jurisprudence.
Auszug aus dem Buch
2.3.1.2 The Role of the CA to Inform the County Governor of the Impeachment Charges and Hear the Governor
Every person has the right to fair administrative action that is expeditious, efficient, lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair. The right to fair hearing also asks that one be informed of the charges, with sufficient detail to answer them, that one be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, that one be informed in advance of the evidence the prosecution intends to rely on, and to have reasonable access to that evidence. Therefore, the county Governor must be given notice and a fair hearing at both the CA and the Senate. The CA is supposed to notify and inform the Governor of the impeachment motion through the Clerk of the Assembly. An example is the County Assembly of Laikipia Standing Orders which provide that:
The person being removed from office shall be availed with the report of the select Committee, together with any other evidence adduced and such note or papers presented to the Committee at least three days before the debate on the Motion.
Chapter Summaries
1. Introduction: This chapter provides the research context, covering the background, problem statement, research methodology, and theoretical framework regarding the devolution of power in Kenya.
2. Constitutional, Legal and Institutional Framework for the Impeachment of County Governors: This section examines the specific constitutional provisions and statutory frameworks that regulate the removal of county governors, focusing on the roles of the Senate, County Assemblies, and the courts.
3. The Emerging Issues from the Gubernatorial Impeachment Cases in Kenya since 2013: This chapter identifies challenges such as the politicization of impeachment, the justiciability of the process, and the rights of the public to participate in gubernatorial removal.
4. Conclusion and Recommendations: The final chapter synthesizes the research findings and proposes specific legal reforms to ensure that the impeachment process supports rather than hinders the objects of devolution.
Keywords
Devolution, Impeachment, County Governor, Constitution of Kenya 2010, County Assembly, Senate, Oversight, Accountability, Judiciary, Public Participation, Justiciability, Gross Misconduct, Legal Framework, Legislative Process, Political Goodwill.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary focus of this legal research paper?
The paper focuses on critiquing the constitutional and legislative framework for the impeachment of County Governors in Kenya, analyzing how these processes have been applied since 2013.
What are the central themes addressed in the work?
Key themes include the separation of powers, legislative oversight versus abuse of power, the role of judicial supervision, and the constitutional necessity of public participation in the removal of elected officials.
What is the core objective or research question?
The study seeks to determine whether existing legal frameworks have failed to prevent the abuse of the impeachment process by County Assemblies and the Senate, and whether amendments are required to safeguard the objects of devolution.
Which scientific methodology is employed?
The research uses a qualitative methodology, primarily based on desk research, involving a critical review of the Constitution of Kenya, statutes, case law, academic books, and reports, supplemented by a comparative legal study of Nigerian jurisprudence.
What is covered in the main body of the research?
The main body examines the specific procedural roles of County Assemblies, the Senate, and the courts, while identifying emerging legal issues and tensions in gubernatorial impeachment cases since 2013.
Which keywords best characterize the research?
Core keywords include Devolution, Impeachment, County Governor, Constitutional Framework, Oversight, Accountability, and Public Participation.
How does the author interpret the role of the County Assembly in the impeachment process?
The author argues that while the County Assembly holds the "sole impeachment power" to initiate proceedings, this role has frequently been misused for "selfish interests," such as political score-settling rather than genuine oversight.
What is the significance of the Nigerian jurisprudence mentioned in the paper?
Nigerian jurisprudence is used for comparative purposes to provide instructive lessons on interpreting constitutional provisions regarding the removal of governors, particularly regarding the definition of "gross misconduct."
What is the author's stance on public participation?
The author argues that public participation is a constitutional requirement that is currently inadequately facilitated, and that current procedures in County Assembly Standing Orders treat participation as a mere formality rather than a substantive right.
- Quote paper
- Michael Mutinda (Author), 2018, A Critique of the Constitutional and Legislative Framework in Kenya. For the Impeachment of County Governors, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/594617
