Comparing the Impeachment of the

Governor and the President.

The motion to initiate the motion of impeachment of either a president
or a governor requires the support of at least a third of the members of
the national assembly or the county assembly members respectively.
Both the president and the governor may be impeached:

i. On grounds of gross violation of the constitution or any other law.

ii.Where there are serious reasons for believing that either of them has
committed a crime under the international law.

iii.On grounds of gross misconduct.

If these motions are supported by two thirds of the
members of the two houses, i.e. the National
Assembly for the president or the County Assembly
for the governor, the following shall occur;

a. The speakers of both houses shall inform the

speaker of the senate of the resolution to conduct the
impeachment.

b.Both the president and governor shall continue to

carry out their duties in their offices as they await the
outcome of the proceedings on their impeachment
After seven days of being informed by the
speakers of the houses concerning the
impeachment motion, the speaker of the senate
shall in accordance to the constitution convene
a meeting of the senate to hear the charges
against the president or the governor,
depending on the individual whom the motion
to impeach was passed against.

The Senate then shall appoint a special eleven-

member committee who will carry out
investigation on the matter.
The special eleven-member committee will be tasked
with the following responsibilities:

a.Investigating the matter.

b.Reporting to the Senate within a further seven days

whether here is any validity in the allegations leveled
against the president or the governor or they are just
malicious allegations.

Upon establishing the validity of the accusations

leveled against the president or the governor, they
will each have an opportunity to be represented
during the process of investigation.
The committee can either report that the allegations
against the governor or the president have or have
not been substantiated.

In case they have NOT been substantiated, there shall

be no further proceedings in relation to such
allegations against them.

However, in case they HAVE BEEN substantiated, then

the senate shall give the governor or the president a
chance to appear before it and be heard. After that,
the senate shall conduct a vote on whether or not
they should be impeached.
If at least two-thirds of the senate members vote in support
of the upholding of the impeachment charge, the president
shall cease to hold office forthwith.
The impeachment of the governor, however, requires a simple
majority of the vote by the Senate members.

If a vote in the Senate fails to result in the impeachment of

the governor, the Speaker of the Senate shall then inform the
speaker of the concerned County Assembly of the outcome
and the County Assembly can decide on whether it will re-
introduce the impeachment motion on the same grounds.
However, the Assembly may only do this after three months
elapse after the vote by the members of the Senate.
Role of the Judiciary in the Process of Impeachment
of the Governor and the President.

In respect to Article 163(6), the Supreme Court may

give advisory opinion at the request of the National
Government. State organ or any county government
on any matter concerning the county governments
(including the impeachment of the governors)

The Judiciary can also make decisions on cases filed

against the removal of the governor or the president
according to Article 165(3) (c)
For the case of the impeachment of the
governor where the parliament is expected to
enact legislation on the procedure to be
followed, the High Court will interpret the
procedure whether it’s inconsistent to the
constitution or not as stated in Article (3) (d) (i)

In respect to the impeachment process, the

High Court may make an order or give any
direction it considers appropriate to ensure fair
administration of justice through the process.
Recommendation on How to Solve The Existing
Conflict between the arms of the Government.

The existing conflict between the three arms of the

government mainly based on how they carry out their
duties is something that has to be brought to an end if
the citizens are to enjoy the benefits of devolution.
The state organs need to understand that the sole
purpose for their existence is for the benefits of the
citizens and they should serve the citizens as diligently
as they possibly can.

This can be done through the following ways:

1. Tolerance and political goodwill by all the
arms of the government. The arms of the
government should realize that they all are in
existence to achieve a common good and not to
settle supremacy battles. They should take note
that the authority assigned to them is a public
trust and ought to be exercised in a manner
that demonstrates respect for the people,
brings honor to the nation and dignity to office.
This is in accordance to the provision in Article
73 (1) (b)
2. Through commitment to the implementation of
the new constitution. The arms of the government
ought to at least show that they are committed to the
implementation of the constitution and devolution of
their functions as provided for the constitution, the
supreme law of the land. They should stick to their
mandates as spelt out in the constitution and not
meddle in each others’ functions as it kills the spirit of
devolution. For example, the parliament summoning
the JSC over the dismissal of the registrar of the
courts was infringing on the independence of the
Judiciary.
3. Through vigilance of the citizens take mass action
and demand better accountability. The citiens can act
as a watchdog to the arms of the body and vigilantly
push them to ensure that they stick to their
constitutional mandate and not meddle in other arms
functions. As the main stakeholders, who stand out to
lose the most in the event these arms fail to perform
as expected of them, they should be ‘selfish’ and
ensure that their needs are met first by these arms.
Mass action can be taken by the citizens in the event
that these arms fail to deliver on their mandate and
make demands for accountability.
4.Creating rules and regulations to curb the arms
from acting ultra vires. These will enable the keeping
of checks on the arms. It will also prevent the arms
from overstepping of their mandates.