Kenya’s Supreme Court may have ended Mike Sonko’s political career after affirming earlier rulings from lower courts that his impeachment was lawful.
The judge is a devastating blow to Sonko’s political career as it bars him from engaging in elective politics and prohibits him from getting a job in public service.
Just two ago, the Sonko camp broke into song and dance after the High Court granted Sonko the go-ahead to vie for the seat of Governor in Mombasa County.
But their joy did not last long. The Supreme Court on Friday afternoon ruled the former Nairobi Governor was lawfully impeached, consequently locking out the 47-year-old flamboyant political supremo from the Mombasa gubernatorial race.
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.
Going by the ruling, Sonko, who received Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) clearance to vie, can no longer run for the position. Should IEBC allow him to run, anyone can challenge his eligibility in court.
The Supreme Court, in its ruling, said that Sonko was found liable for four charges.
On December 17, 2020, the Senate of Kenya voted overwhelmingly in favor of the four charges that the County Assembly of Nairobi had brought against the former Governor. They included gross misconduct, violation of the Constitution, abuse of office, gross misconduct while in office, and crimes against national law.
On December 3 of the same year, Sonko was impeached by 88 members of the county assembly. Two MCA’s voted against the move.
In the Supreme Court ruling, the issue of contravention of Article 75 of the Constitution featured extensively.
ALSO READ: HIGH COURT CLEARS SONKO TO RUN FOR MOMBASA GOVERNOR
In the Constitution of Kenya 2010, the article states that a state officer shall behave in a manner that avoids conflict between personal interests and public or official duties. The office holder should also conduct himself in a dignified manner and avoid demeaning the Governor’s office.
Sub-article 3 of the article states that a person dismissed or otherwise removed from office for a contravention of the provisions specified in the clause is disqualified from holding any other state office.
Supreme Court judges that heard and determined Sonko’s appeal to the lower courts against his impeachment were Deputy Chief Justice Philomena Mwilu, Justices Mohammed Ibrahim, Smokin Wanjala, Njoki Ndung’u, Isaac Lenaola, and William Ouko.
On Friday 15th at 4 pm, the court delivered its ruling via email.
“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,” the verdict read in part.
Upon consideration, the highest court in the land dismissed the appeal by Sonko and gave seven reasons for its decision.
The court said it lacked jurisdiction to determine the appeal. Nonetheless, the court decided to hear and determine the case due to the public interest nature of the dispute, the need for due guidance to the judicial process, and the sake of posterity and development of jurisprudence.
The court decided that the impeachment proceedings before the County Assembly and the Senate were conducted correctly per Article 181 of the Constitution, Section 33 of the County Governments Act, and Standing Orders of the Assembly and the Senate.
Furthermore, the court said that Sonko received enough time to respond to the charges against him at the county assembly and in the Senate.
Additionally, the Supreme Court ruled there was sufficient public participation in Sonko’s impeachment.
“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,” the judgment read.
In the four counts for which Sonko was impeached, the Supreme Court said in the ruling that “the County Assembly, the Senate, and the two superior courts below were convinced that the charges were proven to the standard required in such circumstances. No error for their analysis and conclusion has been presented.”
In conclusion, the court cemented the importance of Chapter Six of the Constitution.
“The authority assigned to a State officer is a public trust to be exercised in a manner that demonstrates respect for the people; brings honor to the nation and dignity to the office, and promotes public confidence in the integrity of the office. It vests in the State officer the responsibility to serve the people, rather than the power to rule them,” the judgment said.
The judgment is a big blow to Sonko, who had already geared up for campaigns in Mombasa.
After his court victory on Thursday, Sonko issued an optimistic statement.
“Today marks a new chapter in Mombasa County politics, having been cleared by IEBC to run for the Mombasa Gubernatorial seat in the forthcoming elections,” Sonko said. “It has been a long, tiresome, and bumpy journey, but by the grace of the Lord, the will of the people has been granted.”
After the High Court ruling cleared him to vie for the Mombasa governorship, Sonko denied allegations that President Kenyatta’s intervention awarded him the victory. Sonko said that the judiciary is independent and asked people to respect its decisions.
“And if at all the President was in control of the judiciary, why did the BBI case collapse at the High Court, Court of Appeal, and even the Supreme Court?” He posed.
Sonko has not yet issued a statement in response to the Supreme Court ruling.
Wiper Party, under whose ticket Sonko is running, has also not issued a statement.