THIRTEENTH PARLIAMENT

Fourth Session

Wednesday, 27th August, 2025 at

9.00 a.m. - Special Sitting

PARLIAMENT OF KENYA

(Convened via Kenya Gazette Notice No.11796 of 21st August, 2025) The House met at the Senate Chamber, Parliament Buildings at 9.05 a.m.

PRAYER

DETERMINATION OF QUORUM AT COMMENCEMENT OF SITTING

COMMUNICATION FROM THE CHAIR

PRE-HEARING MEETING ON THE PROPOSED REMOVAL FROM OFFICE, BY IMPEACHMENT, OF THE GOVERNOR OF KERICHO COUNTY, HON. (DR.) ERICK KIPKOECH MUTAI

(The House went into an in-camera session at 9.27 a.m.) (End of in-camera session) (Members of the public, the media and the parties were ushered into the Chamber)

HEARING AND DETERMINATION OF THE PROPOSED REMOVAL FROM OFFICE, BY IMPEACHMENT, OF HON. (DR) ERIC KIPKOECH MUTAI, THE GOVERNOR OF KERICHO COUNTY RECITAL OF THE MANDATE OF THE SENATE, RULES OF PROCEDURE AND HEARING PROGRAMME

1. A copy of an approved Notice of Motion dated 16th August, 2025 and laid on the Table of the Assembly on Wednesday, 6th August, 2025, the afternoon session.
2. Certified copy of a list of members with signatures in support of a Motion for removal of the Kericho County Governor, by impeachment, dated the 6th August, 2025.
3. Order Papers
4. A copy of the Gazette Notice for the Special Sitting of Friday, 15th August,

1. Certified HANSARD
2. Copies of letters dated the 6th and 13th August, 2025, Ref.No.KCA/SP/3
3. A copy of an affidavit of service by M/s Sharon Chepng’etich Mibey serving
4. Certified copy of electronic voting extracts (33 votes) on a Motion for the
5. Documents tabled during the debate on the Motion for the removal of the
6. The payment vouchers for Lands, Housing and Physical Planning Department
7. Denbi Holdings Limited;
8. Payment vouchers for the Agriculture, Livestock and Cooperative
9. Derju Enterprise Limited;
10. Pkendes Company; and,
11. A procurement plan and a memorandum for supply and delivery of assorted
12. Payment vouchers for Public Works, Roads and Transport Department made
13. Simron Construction Company
14. Payment vouchers for Finance and Economic Planning Department made to
15. Alucraft Voucher;
16. Jomarcx Holding Limited; and
17. Payment vouchers for Health Services Department made to the following-
18. Afroscape Limited; and
19. Payment vouchers for Water, Energy, Environment, Forestry and Natural
20. Chebema Construction
21. Report on the pending bills by Ad Hoc Committee.
22. Report by the Committee on Water and Environment on FLLoCA projects.
23. NAVCDP report by the Committee on Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries.
24. Ad Hoc Committee
25. Report by the Department of Finance and Economic Planning (Strategic
26. Four affidavits.
27. One judgment and one ruling.
28. Ad Hoc Committee
29. Auditor-General reports.
30. Correspondence between the Governor and the Speaker dated 20th August
31. Advertisement for vacancies by County Public Service Board-
32. An internal memo on redeployment of staff under the Health Service Department.
33. Ad Hoc Committee
34. Voucher for Mengro Products Limited retention.
35. Other companies that were paid retention money.
36. Evidence of public participation-
37. An extract of The Standard newspaper advertisement for public participation on
38. Governor's response and Volume one and two.
39. Kericho County Assembly Standing
40. Flash disc containing video evidence and three transcripts.

for the Assembly sittings of Wednesday, 6th August, 2025,

reports for the Assembly sittings of Wednesday, 6th

Limited;

Supply; and,

report on Kazi Mtaani.

report on Londiani incident.

report on alleged fictitious payment.

Orders.

Sen. Mbugua, the Chair must be heard in silence. In particular, Article 181 of the Constitution provides as follows-

1. A county governor may be removed from office on any of the following grounds –
2. gross violation of this Constitution or any other law;
3. where there are serious reasons for believing that the county governor has committed a crime under national or international law;
4. abuse of office or gross misconduct; or
5. physical or mental incapacity to perform the functions of office of county governor.
6. Parliament shall enact legislation providing for the procedure of removal of a county governor on any of the grounds mentioned in clause (1). Section 33 of the County Governments Act, 2012, Standing Order No.80 and the Third Schedule to the Senate Standing Orders provide for the procedure to be followed in the hearing and determination of the proposed removal from office, by impeachment, of a county governor. Specifically, Section 33(3) and Standing Order 80(1)(b) of the Senate provide that the Senate may either, by resolution, appoint a Special Committee comprising 11 of its Members to investigate the matter or investigate the matter in Plenary. Hon. Senators will recall that at the Special Sitting of the Senate held on Wednesday, 20th August, 2025, the Motion for the establishment of a Special Committee was withdrawn pursuant to Standing Order No.70 for failure to be seconded. This withdrawal paved the way for a default position, the hearing of the impeachment charges against the Governor of Kericho County to be held in plenary. Hon. Senators, ladies and gentlemen, by way of a status update, pursuant to Rules 4(a) and 6 of the Rules of Procedure when considering the proposed removal of a governor in plenary, the Senate invited the Governor to appear and be represented before the Senate during the investigation. The Senate further invited the Governor, if he so chooses to appear before the Senate, to file an answer to the charges with the Office of the Clerk of the Senate by 5.00 p.m. on Monday, 25th August, 2025 setting out the following-
   9. The Governor’s response to the particulars of the allegations. (ii) The mode of appearance before the Senate; whether in person, by advocate or in person and by advocate. (iii) The names and addresses of the persons to be called as witnesses, if any, and witness statements containing a summary of the evidence to be presented by such witnesses before the Senate. (iv) Any other evidence to be relied on.

Hon. Senators, you may walk in and take your seats.

Hon. Senators, pursuant to Rules 4(b) and 7 of the Rules of Procedure, when considering the proposed removal of a governor or a deputy governor in plenary, the Senate notified the Kericho County Assembly of the date for the commencement of the investigation and invited the County Assembly to designate Members of the County Assembly (MCAs) who shall appear and be represented before the Senate during the investigation.

The County Assembly was further invited, if it so chooses to appear before the Senate, to file with the Office of the Clerk of the Senate by 5.00 p.m. on Monday, 25th August, 2025, the following documents-

9. Designating the Members of the County Assembly, being not more than three Members, if any, who shall attend and represent the Assembly in the proceedings before the Senate. (ii) Indicating the mode of appearance before the Senate; whether in person, by advocate or in person and by advocate. (iii) Indicating the names and addresses of the persons to be called as witnesses, if any, and witness statements containing a summary of the evidence to be presented by such witnesses before the Senate. (iv) Specifying any other evidence to be relied on. Hon. Senators, ladies and gentlemen, on Monday, 25th August, 2025, the Office of the Clerk of the Senate received a response dated 23rd August, 2025, to the invitation to appear issued to the Governor, from M/S. Katwa and Kemboy Advocates, who indicated that the Governor had appointed the firm to represent him in the hearing before the Senate. The letter also indicated the counsel representing the Governor and the list of witnesses for the Governor. Counsel for the Governor also indicated that the Governor would appear before the Senate in person and by advocate. Similarly, on Monday, 25th August, 2025, the Office of the Clerk of the Senate received a response, Ref. No.H&K/009/017/2025 and dated 24th August, 2025, to the invitation to appear issued to the County Assembly of Kericho, from M/S. H&K Law Advocates, who indicated that the County Assembly of Kericho had appointed the firm to represent the County Assembly in the hearing and that the County Assembly would also appear in person and by advocates. The letter also indicated the Counsel representing the County Assembly and the list of witnesses for the County Assembly. Pursuant to Rule 8 of the Rules of Procedure when considering the proposed removal of a governor in plenary, the Clerk of the Senate furnished each party with the documentation filed by the other party in accordance with Rules 6 and 7 of the Rules of Procedure. Hon. Senators, ladies and gentlemen, the hearing programme which has been appended in today’s Order Paper, details the various activities in the hearing and determination of the matter and the time allocated to each activity. Therefore, it will be crucial that all the parties comply with the time allocated. The parties will be notified of the balance of time on each activity through the digital clocks mounted on the Clerks’ Table. In summary, the programme states that today, Wednesday, 27th August, 2025, after we have dispensed with preliminary matters, the charges against the Governor shall be read. The Governor will be given an opportunity to take a plea on each charge. This will be followed by an opening statement by the County Assembly and thereafter by the Governor. After the conclusion of the opening statements, the presentation of the case of the County Assembly shall commence and shall not exceed five hours. At the sitting scheduled for tomorrow, Thursday, 28th August, 2025, Hon. Senators will be given an opportunity to ask questions or seek clarifications from the County Assembly. Thereafter, the Governor will have an opportunity to present his case before the Senate. The presentation shall also not exceed five hours. Hon. Senators will also be given an opportunity to ask questions or seek clarifications from the Governor. At the sitting scheduled for Friday the 29th August 2025, the closing statements by the parties will be made for a period not exceeding one hour each. The Senate shall then proceed to debate prior to voting on each of the charges. At this stage, a supplementary order paper will be issued to facilitate this debate. In accordance with Article 123 of the Constitution, the County Government Acts 2012 and Standing Order No.80(6) of the Senate, the voting shall be by county delegations. The Governor shall cease to hold office if a majority of the county delegations in the Senate vote to uphold any impeachment charge. If, however, the vote in the Senate fails to result in the removal of the Governor, pursuant to Standing Order No. 80(7), the Speaker of the Senate shall notify the Speaker of the Kericho County Assembly accordingly. Hon. Senators, ladies and gentlemen, I now invite Counsel for the County Assembly of Kericho to introduce the legal team of the County Assembly and the Members of the Assembly (MCAs) of Kericho representing the County Assembly by stating the full name and the designation of each person. Counsel for the County Assembly, you may now take to the Floor.

INTRODUCTION BY THE KERICHO COUNTY ASSEMBLY TEAM

1. Vincent Kipronoh - Advocate
2. Joel Wakhungu - Advocate
3. Elvis Kipkorir - Advocate
4. Evans Kiplangat - Advocate
5. Victor Kibet - Advocate
6. Geoffrey Langat - Advocate
7. Brian Langat - Advocate
8. Hilary Kiplangat - Advocate
9. Elias Mutuma - Advocate
10. Sharon Mibey - Advocate, Deputy Clerk of the County Assembly
11. Elisha Ongoya - Lead Counsel
12. Kimutai Bosek - Advocate There are also the following Hon. Members from the Kericho County Assembly-
13. Hon. Kiprotich Rogony - Mover of the Motion
14. Hon. Albert Kipkoech
15. Hon. Vincent Korir. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Sir.

INTRODUCTION BY THE KERICHO COUNTY GOVERNOR’S TEAM

1. Katwa Kigen - Lead Counsel
2. Peter Wanyama - Advocate
3. Doris Ng’eno - Advocate
4. Rose Thiong’o - Advocate
5. Joash Mitei - Advocate
6. Evanson Kirui - Advocate

Mr. Speaker, Sir, that is our legal team. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before this honourable House.

READING OF THE CHARGES AGAINST THE GOVERNOR OF KERICHO COUNTY

The Clerk of the Senate (Mr. Nyegenye): The Hon. (Dr.) Erick Kipkoech Mutai, the Governor of Kericho County, please take the stand.

Hon. (Dr.) Eric Kipkoech Mutai, the Governor of Kericho County, the charges against you as received from the County Assembly of Kericho are as follows-

Ground One: Gross Violation of the Constitution and other Laws Gross violation of the Constitution of the Republic of Kenya, 2010; the County Governments Act, 2012; the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act; the Public Finance Management Act, 2012; and Kericho County laws.

The particulars of this ground are as follows-

1. Fictitious payment of works, goods and services Between January, 2025 and July, 2025, the Governor engaged in gross violations of Articles 10, 183, 201, 207 and 208 of the Constitution, and Sections 102, 109, and 110 of the Public Finance Management Act 2012, and Section 30(3)(f) of the County Governments Act, 2012. The Governor aided, abetted and/or condoned the fictitious payment of goods, services and works which were neither delivered nor done, occasioning the county loss of Kshs85,704,522.90 in-
2. Services which were not rendered and or partially done, for example, the maintenance of 15 residential houses in Kipkelion West Sub-County at a cost of Kshs2.99 million; (ii) Goods not delivered, including soya beans, maize germ, sunflower, seed cake and cotton seed cake alleged to have been supplied for Kshs14,980,640; (iii) Overpriced goods, including sodas, alleged to have been bought for about Kshs500 per 300ml bottle and a bale of tissue paper alleged to have been bought for Kshs2,750 per bale of 10 tissue papers and a hand towel priced at Kshs3,600; (iv) Works, goods and services alleged to have been procured for Kshs5,172,715.60 from companies, including Mengro Products Limited, Hildama Construction and Supplies Limited, Brissack Construction and Supplies Limited, Prospera Ventures Limited and IBM Pro Construction Limited without any supporting documents; and,
3. Payment of contractors from the retention account for the works done for more than five years ago, some of which companies had already been paid and therefore misappropriating county funds through double payments.
4. Some of the goods, services and works were procured without following the procurement processes. No tender opening committees were formed, contrary to Section 78 of the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act, 2015 as read together with Regulation 25 of the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal (Regulations) 2020. Similarly, there were no professional opinions done to the accounting officers contrary to Section 84 of the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act 2015.
5. There was deliberate circumvention of competitive tendering of the same goods, services and works by splitting of contracts to suit the request for quotation method, therefore violating Section 54 of the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act 2015 as read together with Regulation 43 of the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal (Regulations) 2020.
6. Most of the goods, services and works were procured outside the approved budget as required under Section 44(2)(a) of the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act, 2015.
7. The documents used by the departments were not clear and did not bear references to the procurement requirement, provision of debts, especially invoices generated and signatures of respective officers. Therefore, there was blatant violation of the provisions of Regulation 68 of the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal (Regulations) 2020.
8. No market survey was conducted as required under Regulation 43(4) of the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal (Regulations) 2020. The contractors, therefore, supplied goods with exorbitant prices, contrary to Section 54(2) of the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act, 2015.
9. All of the subject goods, services and works were paid for in advance, yet the county has accumulated pending bills over the last three years of Kshs1.1 billion, which have been verified and are yet to be paid from the time the Governor assumed office.
10. The report of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Alleged Fictitious Payments, tabled before the Assembly on 5th August, 2024 made pertinent and damning findings and recommendations that point to the deliberate failure to act, neglect of duty and even conspiracy on the part of the Governor to wit:
11. The documents shared with the Ad Hoc Committee by the departmental heads called to testify were not accompanied by the items invoice. This lends credence to the suspicion that the documents may have been prepared to cover up the theft after the whistle was blown.
12. The payments were made in advance before goods, services and works were delivered or done. As at the date of the tabling of the report, some of those goods, services and works remained undelivered to date.
13. Documents that were used to process payments bore the signatures that could not be authenticated. Subsequently, certain officers whose signatures appear in the said documents have denounced the documents.
14. The gaps highlighted in the report point to serious governance concerns and weak internal controls in Kericho County that the appointing authority (the Governor), policy makers, accounting officers and, indeed, all the officers entrusted to deliver services to the county, have failed to do as required by law.
15. There was an intention to defraud the county and violations of the Constitution, 2010, the Public Finance Management Act, 2012, the County Governments Act, 2012, the Leadership and Integrity Act, the Powers and Privileges (County Assemblies) Act, the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act, 2015.
16. Under Article
17. It is a matter of public notoriety that when the whistle was blown on these

179 of the Constitution and Section 30 (3)(f) of the County

Project (NAVCPD) funds

1. On various dates between the year 2023 and 2025, the Governor has violated the provisions of Articles 10, 183, 201, 207 and 208 of the Constitution and Sections 48 and 159 of the Public Finance Management Act 2012 and Section 30(3)(f) of the County Government Act 2012 by aiding, abetting, condoning and or overseeing the massive looting, pilferage, misappropriation and misallocation of NAVCDP funds amounting to over Kshs351 million as at 10th June, 2025.
2. From the report of the Committee of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries and Cooperative Management, Tourism and Wildlife on the implementation status of the NAVCDP in Kericho County, tabled in the County Assembly on 6th August, 2025, the County Assembly noted the following discrepancies in the use of the fund-
3. The expenditure was used for farmers' cooperative societies, found only in 19 of 30 wards in Kericho County. This implies that the funds that were meant for agripreneurs, whose role was to enumerate farmers and organize them into Savings and Credit Cooperative Organizations (SACCOs) was not adequately utilized.
4. Each ward SACCO was meant to get Kshs1 million yet the Committee found that out of the 19 SACCOs under the programme, only seven have ever received financial support since the inception of the fund.
5. It is further indicated in the report that some SACCOs received nominal support in kind in form of office furniture and some farm inputs, while others have never received any support.
6. Even those SACCOs and farmer producer organizations which received support in kind did not receive delivery notes when the furniture, computers and other supplies were delivered. They cannot, therefore, ascertain the prices, source and therefore quality of what was supplied.
7. The procurement of furniture and equipment under the NAVCDP programme was conducted centrally with minimal involvement of key stakeholders. This does not only undermine the principle of transparency in procurement, decision making and lack of ownership, but also created room for pilferage and misappropriation of the fund.
8. The office furniture and equipment supplied under the NAVCDP programme are largely of substandard quality. There was therefore no value for money and compliance with the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act, 2015, particularly Section 124, which obligates the procuring entity to select Quality and Cost-Based Selection (QCBS) method, as the preferred method to be used to evaluate proposals.
9. The manner in which the few projects which were implemented was done shows that they were done without following the project implementation manual published by the World Bank to guide the implementation of the projects.
10. Again, the Governor shirked his overall responsibility under Article 179(4) of the Constitution and Section 30(3)(f) of the County Governments Act 2012, to be accountable for the management and use of county resources.
11. There is evidence that the Governor has been ordering withdrawals from the Fund for reasons other than those for which the fund was created by the donor. Evidence of this shall be availed at the hearing and consideration of this Motion. The Mover will as well be asking the Assembly to issue an order under Article 195(2)(b) of the Constitution and Sections 27(1)(c) and (2) of the County Assemblies Powers and Privileges Act 2017, compelling the relevant banks where the funds were drawn from to furnish this House with the bank statements showing withdrawal of the funds from 2023 to date.

III.

Misappropriation of funds and unfair distribution of projects under the Financing Locally-Led Climate Action (FLLoCA) Fund

1. . That, on various dates between 2023 and 2025, the Governor has violated the provisions of Articles 10, 179, 183, 201, 207 and 208 of the Constitution and Sections 102 and 107 of the Public Finance Management Act 2012 and Section 30(3)(f) of the County Governments Act, 2012, by presiding over unfair, skewed and nepotic distribution of projects under FLLoCA funds, imprudent use, misappropriation and misallocation of FLLoCA dunds as follows-
2. Skewed and unfair distribution of projects under the Fund with the Governor’s home ward, namely Chemosot Ward alone getting projects worth Kshs21,701,590 while there are many other wards not only in other sub counties, but even in the Bureti Sub- County which have received not a single project under the Fund. This nepotically skewed distribution of projects under the Fund violates the national values and principles of governance under Article 10 of the Constitution and in particular the values of equity, non-discrimination, equality, good governance, integrity, transparency and accountability; the principles of public finance under Chapter Twelve of the Constitution; as well as the provisions of Sections 102 and 107 of the Public Finance Management Act, which enjoins the Governor to ensure fiscal responsibility and adherence to the values and principles of the Constitution in the management of the county funds.
3. The Joint Committee
4. As a result of this unfair distribution of projects, wards like Cheplanget, on Water and Sanitation and Environment, Energy,

IV.

Misappropriation of County Funds under Equaliser Kazi Mtaani

Initiative

1. On or about 31st August, 2023, the Governor engaged in gross violation of Articles 10, 183, 201, 207 and 208 of the Constitution and Sections 102, 109 and 110 of the Public Finance Management Act, 2012 by launching a programme dubbed “Equaliser Kazi Mtaani Initiative” and drawing county funds towards the initiative without a legislation to anchor the initiative, public participation, prior approval of the County Assembly and the Controller of Budget and prior approval of the Budget and Appropriation Committee.
2. Under the Fund, a total of Kshs39 million was paid without proper tendering, Local Service Orders (LSOs) and for the services which were not delivered.
3. The County
4. The deliberate failure, omission and unwillingness to implement the report of

Assembly’s report on the Ad Hoc Committee on Kazi Mtaani

V.

Misappropriation of Funds under the Strategic Intervention Projects

(SIPs)

1. In various dates during the Financial Year 2024/2025, the Governor engaged in gross violation of Articles 10, 183, 201, 207 and 208 of the Constitution and Sections 102, 109 and 110 of the Public Finance Management Act 2012 by overseeing misappropriation of various projects under the SIPs Fund.
2. For instance, the project for upgrading of Kunyak Dispensary to Health Centre which is a retender project for the construction and renovation of various facilities within the Health Centre by Ms. Belitra Enterprises Limited for Kshs44,756,846, a total of Kshs8,575,186 has been paid for no works done. Indeed, when the County Assembly’s Committee on Implementation visited the site, they found that the contractor had only supplied materials, contrary to the Finance Department’s report to the Assembly that kitchen and staff house was at walling stage while the MCH is at slab level.

VI.

Other Violations of the Constitution and the Law

1. The present and former Chief Executive Committee Members (CECMs) and Chief Officers (COs) have variously reported coercion by the Governor to make financial allocations for Governor’s own use from the funds allocated to their respective departments and which funds they were required to remit through the Governor’s personal assistants.
2. Violation of Article 201(a), (d) and (e) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 on principles of public finance management and Article 226 as read with Article 227 of the Constitution by presiding over glaring irregularities evidenced by-

1. Irregular award of contracts and evasion of accountability.
2. Willfully interfering in the procurement processes and the award of tenders.
   3. Skewed tender awards to various contractors at inflated rate and in collusion with fraudulent contractors and suppliers.
   4. Irregular implementation and unfair distribution of various programmes in the county.
   5. Intentionally and negligently presiding over massive theft of county public funds as evidenced by the Auditor-General’s reports for the preceding financial years which have raised red flags over various projects.
   6. On 15th August, 2023, the Governor compensated the victims of Londiani Accident from the County Emergency Fund to cover up for the funds raised by the public and misappropriated by a committee he had formed to steer the fund drive without a cogent explanation of how the funds publicly raised for the victims had been expended. Allegation 2: Misappropriating and/or Abetting Misappropriation of the Funds Publicly Raised for the Victims of the Londiani Accident
3. On various dates between 4th July, 2023 and 9th July, 2023, the Governor grossly violated the provisions of Articles 10, 73 and 75 of the Constitution and Sections 29 and 34 of the Leadership and Integrity Act, 2012 by-
   1. Overseeing misappropriation of the funds raised for the victims of the horrendous Londiani Junction accident tragedy in which over Kshs9 million of public raised funds were lost.
   2. Reneging on his undertaking to implement the Report of the County Assembly’s Ad Hoc Committee formed to probe the misappropriation of funds meant for the victims of the accident. There is evidence that the Governor filed a suit and/or supported a suit by those implicated in the Report of the County Assembly’s Ad Hoc Committee in Kericho ELRC Petition No. E006 of 2023 – Dr. Wesley Bor & 5 Others vs. the Governor, Kericho County Government & Others and Kericho ELRC Petition No. E014 of 2023 – Victor Tum & Others vs. the Governor, Kericho County Government & Others.
   3. Being personally and directly complicit in the flawed award of direct tenders for service providers during the fundraiser and requiem mass of the victims of the accident.
   4. The County Governor
   5. The authenticity of various payments made cannot be confirmed. The fact that
   6. While the Governor is on record indicating that the medical bills for all the
   7. By his acts of omission and commission, the Governor has grossly violated the
   8. By overseeing the misappropriation of the funds aimed at assisting the victims
   9. By allowing himself to be a master of doublespeak in such a grave matter that
   10. By allowing himself and senior officials close to him to benefit from the
   11. By failing to ensure that decision-making in the executive office of the County
   12. Gross misconduct, and
   13. Skewed, uncompetitive and nepotic appointments of the county employees of
   14. Illegally appointing one Mrs. Alice Bett (now Judge of the High Court) as the
   15. Causing the advertisement of the positions of doctors, nurses, early childhood
   16. Illegally deploying health staff vide the Notice dated 22nd July, 2024 without
   17. Since his assumption of office, the Governor has dismissed a total of 10
   has, in this regard, committed numerous and various

Allegation

2: Subversion, Discrediting and Impeding of the Oversight Role of the County Assembly

On 3rd September, 2024, the Governor engaged in-

9. gross misconduct; and, (ii) grossly violated the provisions of Articles 10, 73, 75, 174 and 185(3) of the Constitution and abused his office by writing to the Speaker purporting to direct the Speaker on, among other things, the timelines the Speaker should give the chief officers who are summoned by the Assembly for questioning in exercise of the Assembly’s oversight mandate.

Ground Three: Gross Misconduct

The Particulars of this ground are as follows- Allegation 1: Bullying, Incitement, Vilification of People and County Staff On various occasions, the Governor has engaged in-

9. gross misconduct; and, (ii) gross violation of the provisions of Articles 10, 73 and 75 of the Constitution, and Sections 29 and 34 of the Leadership and Integrity Act by-
10. The Governor
11. None of the dismissed CECMs, COs and Chiefs of Staff and other senior county
12. The Governor

4. The Governor
5. The acts of the Governor enumerated above have collectively brought dishonour

has been operating with impunity as though he is above the law.

has persistently intimidated, molested, harassed county officers

has persistently used divisive and unbecoming language which

PRELIMINARY MATTERS AND OBJECTIONS SPECIAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR A WITNESS WITH MOBILITY IMPAIRMENT

ADMISSION OF DOCUMENTS BY THE COUNTY ASSEMBLY OF KERICHO

ACCURACY AND THRESHOLD OF VOTE TAKEN ON IMPEACHMENT MOTION BY COUNTY ASSEMBLY OF KERICHO

It is at Volume II.

1. We have particularly identified four MCAs whose votes were fraudulently captured as having voted in favour of the impeachment. They have said they did not vote. To the extent to which the report on the voting at page 98 to 106 is bundle one of the Governor’s report purports that the four also voted is a forgery. The other issue which we want my learned friend to highlight is that it will be noted that there are individuals based on the log in audit that the County Assembly has produced, there were three MCAs who voted twice; that is Hon. Rogony Kiprotich, who is the Mover of the Motion. Not only is it reflected on the audit report, but he is also in the audio as telling one of the people he voted on behalf of that, “please let me give you some money in exchange for you vindicating having voted on your behalf.” The other one is Hon. Moses Rotich who voted twice and Hon. Beatrice Chepkoech. The other issue we wish to advance is the Standing Order No.77(4) enacted by the County Assembly which requires that when you implement the use of electronic voting, the MCAs will be allowed to one, not only to press, but to press a button.

Mr. Speaker, Sir, it should be a common ground between myself and our learned colleagues from the County Assembly that there was no gadget which could be pressed and there was not button to be pressed. They sent a link to mobile phones and asked MCAs to open the link and vote. To the extent to which the Standing Order requires that you press a button, there was no device which could satisfy that requirement for electronic voting at that point in time.

We also point out that the affidavit sworn by the IT expert multiple times at pages 79 to 85 is that there was a unique criterial to enter the portal. It will be noted, as my learned colleague will demonstrate, that their identifiers were merely the payroll number and the Identification (ID) number. Anybody who knows the ID and payroll numbers

1. These are the credentials based on the County Assembly’s document of an MCA known as Moses Rotich. The log says he voted “Yes” to the Motion. On page 17 of the County Assembly document, look at the IPPD number. It is of the same person. The same Member of County Assembly (MCA), Moses Rotich. It is said he voted again, “yes”. So, he voted twice in this system. That is the first entry on page 17. The first entry at the top there is the same IPPD number of the MCA who is appearing on the call logs as having voted twice. He appears at page 16 and page 17, the first entry. The second MCA who voted twice is Beatrice Chepkemoi. On the ninth line at page 16, you will see an MCA voting yes and the credentials, as you can see there, the IPPD number is again 202-96089. This MCA, based on the County Assembly document, you can identify the name is Beatrice Chepkemoi, voted yes. At page 17, on the fourth line, you will see the same credentials for Beatrice Chepkemoi, again voting yes. Then the last MCA who voted twice is the mover of the Motion.

1. Allow me to demonstrate why you cannot determine this objection on the grounds raised by my learned colleague, Mr. Wanyama, by referring to a decision of the High Court on a similar issue. This Senate impeached another governor called Mike Sonko Mbuvi Gideon Kioko and an issue of electronic voting arose in that matter. When that matter went to the High Court, there was a petition number A4 25 of 2020 that was considered by the High Court and the judgment is publicly available on the National Council for Law Reporting (NCLR). At paragraphs 169 and 170 of that judgment, the three-judge bench of the High Court observed- “The court is now left with two separate sets of affidavits that present contradictory positions. On the one hand, some MCAs aver that their login credentials were forged---” Same thing you are hearing here. “--- and that they never participated in the voting process on 3rd December, 2020, and even went to the extent of making a report at Kwale Police Station.” It is the same argument you will hear here. “On the other hand, 20 of the same 39 MCAs swore affidavits for the Governor, 20 of them swore fresh affidavits on 4th December, 2020, stating that they willingly voted on 3rd December, 2020.” You will find the same scenario in this case before you. Same scenario. The High Court says- “The HANSARD, which is the official record of the County Assembly, shows that 90 MCAs voted in respect to Hon. Ogada's Motion. In view of the contradictory averments by some of the MCAs who are alleged to have been in Kwale, coupled with the lack of any expert evidence in support of the alleged hacking---” Let me stop there by demonstrating that Mr. Wanyama is a lawyer like me. He is no expert in ICT. He will not guide you on the functionality of ICT. “--- coupled with lack of evidence to support the alleged hacking, we find that petitioners did not establish that the two-thirds statutory requirement for the impeachment of the Governor was not met.” Having said that, let me go to the logs at page 13 to 17. These are logs in an ICT system. They told you what you have before you is a printout of those logs. It means one must copy the logs then print them out. That is the only way we can present the evidence of the logs here. Otherwise, this ICT expert has put the link in his affidavit. When he takes the witness stand when the trial starts, he will demonstrate to you how this system works and you will see the logs themselves. However, to give you a print out, which is a requirement of the rules of procedure, one has to copy the logs and put them here. Therefore, if the logs are copied twice, it does not mean that somebody voted twice. Allow me to take you through the exact entries that my colleague, Mr. Wanyama, has alluded to. At page 16 is a log called 15th August, 2025 at 19:25:29 hours, 7:15 p.m. and 29 seconds. He alleges that there is a vote cast by that IPPD number and you go to page 17, you see where he is alluding to the first line. On 15th August, 2025 at 9:15:29 vote cast by that IPPD number. Let us look at the next log on 15th August, 2025, 19:15:26. Let us go to the corresponding log on the following page 17 on 15th August, 2025 at 19:15:26. The same hour, same minute and same second. Senators, go to the third entry. This is 19:15:23. Then you go to the following log, 19:15:23, failed log. You see the same entries of the same IPPD number by the same person at the same hour, same minute and same second. This is a product of the copying of the logs for purposes of printing. It is not the logs in the system. When you copy the log to print, you can copy twice. The results of this election, which my learned friend of course--- The results are at pages 21 to 28. On page 22, the second box from the bottom, that is Hon. Chepkemoi Beatrice, you notice she voted “yes” at 19:15:19 hours and you do not see her in any other entry in the results of the vote. These are the results of the vote. This is what the Speaker declared. You run from page 21 to page 28. You will see every MCA who voted “Yes” captured once. I juxtapose this data and possibly, Mr. Speaker, when the Members will be contributing, fortunately for us, this Senate is a crucible of talent. There are multiples of talent here and there are ICT experts among you. They will demonstrate very clearly that you cannot take a copying of the logs to print when it is copied twice. Therefore, somebody voted twice. Otherwise, it would mean that these people were so meticulous that from that entry that Mr. Wanyama began with up to the second last entry on that page, and when you go to page 17 from the first entry up to the 11th entry, those people transacted meticulously at the same time, second, minute, hour. It makes no sense. That is number one. Number two, in their submissions, my learned colleagues have said they will call witnesses to prove these facts. It means what they have raised before you, are questions about credibility of witnesses. The forum for testing credibility of witnesses is in the trial itself, so that this ICT expert will take the stand, take you through the procedure and logs and field questions. Then you will able to test the credibility. That will be the case for any other person, including MCAs. I am making out a case that what has been argued before you is not a preliminary objection by any stretch of imagination of that word, preliminary objection. These are contentious, convoluted matters of law which even you have seen, my learned colleague, Mr. Wanyama, wishes to convert himself into a witness and also tells you how he participated in this voting process himself. We have no problem with that, Senators. If my learned colleague, Mr. Wanyama, wishes to take the witness stand and adduce that evidence, we have been here long enough to demonstrate that we deal with that in cross examination. It is the only tool known to law for testing veracity of evidence. Allow me then to go to the Standing Orders. Standing Order No.77 of the Kericho County Assembly Standing Orders is the operating Standing Order for this process. I will also briefly allude to Standing Order No.83. Standing Order No.77 provides that- “Unless the Speaker, for the convenience of the Assembly, otherwise directs, voting on a division in the Assembly shall be by electronic voting.” So, the first grievance that my learned colleagues for the Governor are raising is, why did the Speaker comply with Standing Order No.77? That is the essence of the objection. Standing Order No.77(3) provides that- “During electronic voting, members shall cast their votes by pressing either “Yes”, “No” or “Abstain” button.” I sat hear listening to my learned colleague, Mr. Katwa Kigen, the politest and a courteous colleague that I know, saying that the word “button” means a manual button. Technology has evolved. When an electronic system prompts you with three electronic buttons; “Yes”, “No” and “Abstain” and you press one, I respectfully submit that you have pressed a button. Partly if this objection was based on a very manual understanding of the word “button”--- I do not know how much more I can say about that, but I think that is the best I can do. To say that because Kericho County Assembly has technologically advanced that people can press electronic buttons as we do with M-Pesa on our smartphones by pressing “Yes”, “No” or “Cancel” without pressing a manual button, or like we do at Automated Teller Machines (ATMs). An ATM machine prompts you, for example, to select bank statement or withdrawal on the screen. To say that because Kericho County Assembly is at pace with that technology and we must therefore fault it, it will be a sad day in the history of governance of this country if we reached that verdict. Hon. Senators, you have been told that certain MCAs have sworn affidavits distancing themselves from the vote. We have demonstrated to you that this is not a new game in town. Firstly, in the Mike Mbuvi Sonko Case that happened, the court determined that the HANSARD is the authoritative source of information. The only way to counter that is when those witnesses come here in the trial itself and their evidence is tested. Secondly, when you finally look at Volume 7A, this is an affidavit of one of the said 18 MCAs denying swearing those affidavits that the Governor has brought before you. One of them who swore an affidavit is here before you. Distinguished Senators, can we resolve this matter without putting the actual people on the stand at the trial? I submit respectfully that is impossible.

Mr. Speaker, Sir, I know my time is up. May I have just two minutes to sum up my arguments? Apologies, Mr. Speaker, Sir, because my time is up. I wanted just two minutes to sum up the arguments.

Mr. Speaker, Sir, one of my colleagues is asking if we can play the audio. We have time for the audio. With your permission, can we play it?

ADJOURNMENT