Kenyans have suffered a huge blow after the Senate rejected a petition that was pushing for a legal framework allowing citizens to remove the President and Governors from office.
The dismissal of the petition filed by Nakuru activist Laban Omusundi comes despite evidence of state capture in the National and County Assemblies.
In a report tabled in the Senate on Tuesday, the Standing Committee on Justice, Legal Affairs and Human Rights rejected Omusundi’s petition.
The committee concluded that enacting laws that would allow the recall would be unconstitutional because it would contradict and undermine the already established constitutional provisions.
“The committee established that there are constitutionally prescribed removal procedures for the two executives,” they submitted.
Keep Reading
- Agency seeks to retain mandate over nuclear and radiological e-waste
- Senators flag staff shortage, poor services at Nakuru county referral hospital
The committee considered responses from the Attorney General (AG), Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC), Kenya Law Reform Commission (KLRC) and the County Assemblies Forum (CAF).
The Senators observed that since the Constitution, which establishes an exhaustive framework for the removal, was superior, Parliament lacked legislative competence to enact any contrary law.
“Such mechanisms may only be introduced through a Constitutional amendment. The same touches on the architecture of executive accountability and would require a referendum,” they deposed.
The committee admitted that the Constitution vested all sovereign power in Kenyans, but said the powers could be exercised through their elected representatives.
The elected representatives, MPs and MCAs and the ones mandated to initiate the impeachment process against the President and Governors, respectively.
“The involvement of MPs and MCAs in the removal procedures is a deliberate constitutional safeguard to ensure it is subjected to institutional scrutiny, public accountability and due process.”
In his petition, Omusundi contended that impeachment proceedings had increasingly taken a political character rather than functioning as constitutional safeguards.
He warned that when oversight institutions are perceived as compromised, citizens lack a direct democratic instrument to uphold governance and accountability standards.
“If citizens can elect, they must equally retain the constitutional mechanism to recall, as a tool of accountability, more so when those who are responsible fail,” he argued.
He submitted that the gap left voters with no direct way to hold top leaders accountable during their term in office.
“The system locks citizens who elected the leaders and concentrates power in the hands of politicians,” he submits.
The AG submitted that the constitution provided for the removal of the President and Governors and Parliament had no authority to create contradictory removal processes.
The AG said that the weight of the petition would require a referendum to be able to amend the constitution.
IEBC submitted that Kenya’s impeachment framework lacked a recall mechanism for executive offices and that Kenyans do not have direct democratic recourse for removing a President or County Governor between elections.
“The diversity of legal instruments governing impeachment creates inconsistencies in procedure and political interest at both county and national levels, often overshadowing legal considerations,” IEBC averred.
Further, IEBC submitted that political party interests at both levels of government had highlighted procedural deficiencies, reinforcing the need for a harmonised legislative provision to guide impeachment processes.
IEBC proposed that Parliament enact a comprehensive impeachment and recall statute clarifying procedural steps for both national and county executives.
KLRC submitted that all sovereign power belonged to Kenyans and should be exercised in accordance with the Constitution, either directly or through elected representatives.
CAF affirmed that the Constitution already provided structured and deliberate mechanisms for the removal of executive office holders.
Speaking after the decision, Omusundi said that the extensive debate in the Senate demonstrated that the constitutional questions raised were significant and deserving of national consideration.