IEBC Takes Tough Action On Sonko After Supreme Court Verdict
The Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) revoked his clearance to vie for the county seat in the August 9 general elections
Marvin Chege 
Former Nairobi governor, Mike Mbuvi Sonko has been disqualified from holding any public office, contesting or being elected as the Governor of Mombasa or any other County.
The Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) revoked his clearance to vie for the county seat in the August 9 general elections, according to a letter to him from the County Returning Officer for Mombasa County seen by Viral Tea.
The decision comes after the Supreme Court on Friday, July 15 ruled that Sonko was removed from the Nairobi County office fairly. It had dismissed his appeal on grounds that it lacked jurisdiction to determine it.
"In adherence to the Supreme Court judgement, you are therefore disqualified from holding any public office and thus disqualified from contesting and being elected as the Governor of Mombasa County or any other county. Your candidature is invalidated and your certificate revoked," read the letter in part.
Subsequently, the Supreme Court evoked Article 75(3) of the Constitution, which bars a person impeached from a public office from holding any other state office.
Meanwhile, Sonko has moved to the East Africa Court of Justice (EACJ) to appeal the ruling.
In his latest clash with the legal factions, Sonko stated that he is “gravely and fundamentally aggrieved by the decision of the Supreme Court of Kenya and in the manner in which the said Court and the Courts below conducted the said proceedings contrary to the rule of law and the rules of natural justice.”
Filed under a Certificate of Urgency by Wanyanga & Co. Advocates and dated July 17, 2022, the former county boss had listed an alleged lack of judicial independence, impartiality, integrity, equality and propriety in seeking EACJ’s intervention to “arrest the illegality by granting the applicant appropriate relief at this juncture and subsequently after hearing the parties in the reference.”
He also blamed the courts for arriving at the body-blow decision in an unjust manner and expressed worry at the effect of the said decision curtailing the political rights of the Applicant herein and the people he represents.
Sonko added that the decision was "tainted in illegality as the decision of the High Court of Kenya as upheld by the Supreme Court is vitiated and was influenced through corrupt means and the Presiding Judge who rendered the said decision is currently facing a disciplinary Tribunal over his removal as a result of receiving bribes and influencing the decision that resulted to the removal of the Applicant from office.”
“The foregoing is directly contrary to the Bangalore Principle of impartiality and the Supreme Court ultimately rendered a pre-determined decision which is contrary to the rule of natural justice and the Applicant’s fundamental rights and freedoms to a fair hearing and trial,” Sonko added.
He also accused Chief Justice and President of the Supreme Court of Kenya Martha Koome for rendering and expressing herself publicly on the Applicant’s case and affirmed the position that he does not stand to vie and contest for public office.
The Supreme Court touched on seven issues that eventually led to the dismissal of the appeal:
1. The Court lacked jurisdiction to determine the appeal. However, in view of the public interest nature of the dispute, the need for due guidance to the judicial process and to the courts below and for the sake of posterity and development of jurisprudence the Court (the majority) has decided to settle all the pertinent questions the appeal raises, instead of downing tools on account of want of jurisdiction.
2. The impeachment proceedings before the County Assembly and the Senate were properly conducted in accordance with Article 181 of the Constitution, Section 33 of the County Governments Act and Standing Orders of the Assembly and the Senate.
3. The appellant was accorded adequate time and facility to respond to the charges against him both at the county assembly and in the Senate.
4. That the form of verification envisaged in the context of an impeachment motion is a signed copy of the motion by the Mover and verified by the signatures of at least a third of the members in support of the motion and not an affidavit or any form of disposition.
5. There was sufficient public participation, the intended tabling of the motion for the impeachment of the appellant was not only advertised in a local daily newspaper with wide circulation, in response to which people submitted memoranda, but also a survey was conducted in the county in the form of questionnaires. This was in addition to the fact that the proceedings were conducted in public.
6. There were four counts of impeachable charges against the appellant. The County Assembly, the Senate and the two superior courts below were convinced that the charges were proved to the standard required in such circumstances. No error in their analysis and conclusion has been presented.
7. In the instant situation, the people exercised their power through their democratically elected representatives to uphold and defend Chapter Six of the Constitution.
