Impeachment motion a political conspiracy to oust me, says Mutai

Embattled Kericho Governor, Eric Mutai, mounted a spirited defence yesterday, declaring that the  Motion on his impeachment did not meet the two-thirds legal threshold.

Mutai dismissed the charges tabled against him, telling the Senate of a political scheme to remove him. He said reports on fictitious payments were handed over to him by the county assembly after his impeachment Motion was tabled, and he was never given time to act on it.

“I say this to demonstrate the malice in the County Assembly of Kericho. We were here last year because the Senate indicated that the numbers were not 32 but the Speaker of the assembly, in his own wisdom, led to manufacture of impeachment to be heard in the House,” he said.

The Governor made reference to money meant for the victims of Londiani Junction accident, which he is accused of misusing, saying the same accusation was brought last year despite him having no role in creating the committee to run the funerals.

He added that some of the individuals involved in the saga were sacked over financial impropriety but they were lined up as witnesses against him.

“What is happening in Kericho is a well-orchestrated political conspiracy to remove the governor for political interest and expedition because we have a Speaker at the county assembly whose interest is to be governor of Kericho,” Mutai claimed.

“Someone was asking why I decided to make a statement unlike last year… We are here because of a process that was faulty and the world must know there was no impeachment in Kericho. I know the Upper House will make decisions and there is need to separate responsibilities of the governor and of county executives… I am under your mercy so that you help me get justice because of injustices against me.”

Lawyer Elisha Ongoya for the county assembly argued that there was evidence of "bad behaviour" on the part of the governor, citing issues of double payment, fictitious documents and generating new payment vouchers, among other charges.

“I am demonstrating that we are not using the word 'bad manners' to exaggerate anything or as an alarmist statement, we have documented vouchers, bank statements and photographs to show that,” he told Senators.

Earlier in the morning, the Governor’s defence team led by Katwa Kigen raised preliminary objections to the impeachment hearing and opposed introduction of what he described as new evidence.

Kigen claimed they were unable to file responses for some documents served to them late.

“The second objection, Mr Speaker, is that you already gave a timetable within which the filings were to be done, and we all struggled to file within that time, including ourselves, who also had equally voluminous documents, so the mere contention that it was voluminous is not good enough reason. The third objection we have, Mr Speaker, sir, is that they were not part of the documents used during the proceedings at the county assembly,” he argued.

He made reference to Standing Orders for the Senate, saying they provide that in presenting its evidence, the assembly must not introduce evidence that was not part of the allegations forwarded by the Speaker.

"It is also our argument that if that evidence had been brought to the assembly, there is also the possibility that the assembly could have voted differently, and insisted that the matter proceeds as per the documents filed within the timelines initially given."

Lawyer Peter Wanyama said the mover of the Motion wanted to adduce some evidence which was not before the county assembly.

“Throughout the Motion, you will see there is no evidence. An allegation has been made and no attaching evidence has been adduced. So, in accordance with your rules, and we strongly object to this, the county assembly cannot introduce new evidence. Even if it was mentioned in the pleadings before the county assembly, it cannot introduce that new evidence before this House at this stage for only one reason, it is extremely prejudicial to the Governor,” he insisted.

But Speaker Amason Kingi overruled the objection.

“If I heard counsel for the county assembly correctly, it is that the evidence related to those documents is already in the original bundles. These documents were omitted by mistake during the compiling of those bundles. They do not introduce any new evidence as is being submitted by the counsel for the Governor and therefore, pursuant to Rule 30 of the Rules of Procedure, I will allow those documents to be admitted.”

The Senate will first need to determine how many MCAs voted for the impeachment Motion after the defence team poked holes in the technology deployed, claiming some members voted more than once. The Governor claimed that unauthorised persons could access the system.

They claimed that the system did not have provision for voting by means of pressing a button as required by the Standing Orders, and instead, a link was sent to phone numbers of MCAs, and that the use of payroll and ID numbers as passwords could have compromised the integrity of the process.

“In the event that the Senate finds that the two-thirds threshold of 32 Members of County Assembly was not met, then the impeachment proceedings shall immediately terminate and the Senate shall not proceed to determine the impeachment charges. If, however, the Senate finds that the two-thirds threshold of 32 Members of County Assembly was met then the Senate shall proceed to determine if the impeachment charges have been substantiated by voting thereon,” ruled Kingi.