Parliament Blocks Attempt To Challenge Or Impeach Wetangula
This response effectively blocks the group's attempt to challenge the Speaker’s leadership or push for his removal through external petitions.
Marvin Chege 
The National Assembly has rejected an attempt by the Grassroot Oversight Initiative to initiate a motion censuring Speaker Moses Wetang’ula, citing procedural limitations under parliamentary rules.
In a letter dated February 7, 2025, Clerk of the National Assembly Samuel Njoroge informed the petitioners that parliamentary procedures do not permit discussions on the Speaker’s conduct unless a substantive motion is introduced by a sitting Member of Parliament.
“We have perused the Constitution, the Petition to Parliament (Procedure) Act, 2012, and the National Assembly Standing Orders and note that Standing Order 87(1) provides that the conduct of the Speaker can only be discussed through a substantive motion with at least three days' notice,” the letter stated.
The Clerk further clarified that only an MP personally aggrieved by the Speaker’s conduct has the legal standing to initiate such a censure motion, rendering the Grassroot Oversight Initiative’s petition inadmissible.
This response effectively blocks the group's attempt to challenge the Speaker’s leadership or push for his removal through external petitions. It also highlights the procedural safeguards that protect the Speaker from direct censure by the public, reinforcing the requirement that only MPs can raise such matters within the House.
The Grassroot Oversight Initiative, which had sought to contest the Speaker’s actions, has yet to respond to the National Assembly’s decision.
However, the rejection underscores a procedural deadlock for external groups seeking to influence internal parliamentary affairs without legislative support.
The decision comes amidst scrutiny on Wetangula after ruling that the Kenya Kwanza coalition remained the majority party of the National Assembly, contradicting a High Court ruling that handed the Azimio la Umoja coalition the majority status.
Ruling on the matter on Wednesday, February 12, Wetangula in criticism of the High Court ruling that stripped Kenya Kwanza of majority status, found that the judgement seemed to have caused unprecedented confusion.
"I have read the judgement and it has been explain to me at length by our able legal team. The matter is related to a mixed part of prayers. I have instructed that an appeal be launched against the judgment," he ruled in part.
According to Wetangula, Azimio la Umoja One Kenya party consists of 154 members while the Kenya Kwanza consists of 165 members. He noted that the numbers on Azimio were changed by a slight change of membership, a controversy he declined to engage in.
Right after the ruling, the opposition coalition threatened to impeach Wetangula over alleged impartiality in his ruling. Minority Leader Junet Mohammed condemned Wetangula’s approach to the issue, accusing him of inconsistencies in addressing the status of 14 MPs who defected from Azimio after signing post-election agreements with Kenya Kwanza.
“When he made his first ruling, which was overturned by the court, he claimed the 14 members were part of Kenya Kwanza. Now, he says they are in political limbo—neither in Azimio nor Kenya Kwanza. This is a deliberate manipulation of numbers to ensure Kenya Kwanza remains the majority,” Junet said.
“We have always maintained that Jubilee is still part of Azimio, yet today he says the party is in Azimio. This ruling is full of contradictions and will be overturned in court, just like the previous one. Parliament is not immune to constitutional interpretation by the courts—it is not a court of appeal,” he added.
