Governor Ruto, Controller of Budget risk losing seats

Governor Isaac Ruto is in fresh trouble after the High Court declared that he had flouted the Constitution during the budget making process.

According to former Rift Valley Law Society of Kenya representative Kipkoech Ngetich, Justice Isaac Lenaola’s decision can form grounds for the impeachment of the governor as stipulated under Article 181 of the Constitution, for gross violation.

Also on the spot is Controller of Budget Agnes Odhiambo. Ms Odhiambo was found to have flouted Article 199 of the Constitution by authorising withdrawal of funds from the County Revenue Fund without properly gazetted Appropriation Act.

“The actions of the Controller of Budget to authorise the withdrawal of funds without gazettement as required by law amounts to negligence and abuse of office,” said Ngetich.

He adds that Odhiambo who is protected by the Constitution can be removed if residents move ahead and petition the National Assembly.

The Constitution under 251 Article 1 (a) provides for the removal of the Controller of Budget for serious violation of the Constitution or any other law.

Last year, two residents, Tyson Ng’etich and Peter Langat moved to the High Court seeking to annul the Budget process and sought to have the county government compelled to start the process afresh.

According to the Speaker Geoffrey Kipngetich, the Assembly passed County Appropriation Bill 2014 on June 30, but Governor Ruto refused to assent to it and returned the Bill to the Assembly for amendment.

On July 16, the Assembly debated and passed the Bill with a two-thirds majority, and rejected issues raised by the governor. Again, Ruto failed to assent to the Bill within the stipulated seven days.

Despite the county exhausting all avenues to re-open the debate on the Budget, the Finance Executive tabled the Bomet County Appropriation (Amendment) Bill in July 26 on the Assembly, seeking to amend the Budget estimates.

The Speaker ruled that the estimates were unlawful and adjourned the sitting.

Flawed process

However, the Assembly passed the amendment Bill after the Leader of Majority moved the motion to have the Assembly revisit the budget estimates.

According to the speaker, the Bill was taken through the first reading, second reading, committee stage and third reading, all in one evening session.

He claimed the Budget for Bomet County for 2014/2015 financial year uploaded in the Integrated Financial Management System does not bear any resemblance to any budget that has been passed by the Assembly.

Waweru Tuti, the Legal Officer in the office of Controller of Budget in his affidavits told the court that the county had not adhered to statutory time-lines, and that the Appropriation Act was a product of flawed process.

Tuti further argued that its implementation was contrary to the law and urged the Court to specifically order that counties adhere to the Constitution and all relevant statutes in the budget making process.

In his judgement, Justice Isaac Lenaola noted the Bomet County Appropriation Bill passed by Assembly on July 17 became law after Ruto failed to assent the Bill within the stipulated seven days.

The judgement was also an indictment to the office of Controller of Budget, which authorised the withdrawal, yet the Budget was not gazetted as required in law.

“From the evidence before me, the Appropriation Act was never gazetted, meaning there was no law that could be used to implement the budget for Bomet County for the 2014/2015 financial year,” Lenaola noted.

Lenaola steered clear of other implication of his decision and instead declared the whole process as unconstitutional.

LSK has, however, criticised the court for the judgement, which comes only few weeks to the end of the financial year, saying the decision should have been expeditious to allow for corrective measures.