By Martin Masai
The constitutional standoff between Governor Wavinya Ndeti and the Machakos County Assembly has escalated after Speaker Anne Kiusya formally declared that the Assembly no longer recognizes Catherine Mutanu Raphael as the County Executive Committee Member for Finance, Economic Planning, Revenue Management and ICT.
In a strongly-worded (See below) letter dated 22 July 2026, the Speaker accused the Governor of failing to implement an Assembly resolution removing Mutanu from office and warned that the Assembly would not transact any official business submitted by her.
The latest correspondence provides fresh insight into the bitter dispute that has delayed the approval of Machakos County’s 2026/27 budget.
Addressing the Governor, Speaker Kiusya recalled that the County Assembly had on 8 July 2026 passed a resolution approving the removal of Mutanu from office.
The Speaker reminded the Governor that she had formally communicated that resolution through a letter dated 13 July 2026, urging her to remove the Finance CECM and undertake all consequential administrative actions, including publication of the appropriate Gazette Notice.
“I advised you to give effect to the resolution of the County Assembly by removing the said CECM from office and taking the necessary consequential administrative actions, including the publication of the appropriate Gazette Notice,” the Speaker wrote.
However, Kiusya said no action had been taken.
“It is noted, however, that despite the Assembly’s resolution and the subsequent communication from this Office, no action has been taken to implement the resolution.”
The Speaker then took the unprecedented step of declaring that the Assembly no longer recognized Mutanu as a member of the County Executive.
“Having resolved to remove the CECM from office, it cannot recognize Hon. Catherine Mutanu Raphael as the County Executive Committee Member for Finance, Economic Planning, Revenue Management and ICT, nor can it transact any official business with her in that capacity.”
The letter reveals that despite the impeachment, Mutanu had continued discharging her official duties.
According to Kiusya, Mutanu wrote to the Assembly on 20 July 2026 requesting Members to consider and approve the 2026/27 County Budget Estimates and the County Appropriation Bill.
The Speaker rejected the request.
She stated that because the Assembly had already removed Mutanu from office, it was unable to recognize or act upon any correspondence submitted by her as Finance CECM.
Kiusya consequently demanded that Governor Wavinya urgently implement the Assembly resolution by removing Mutanu from office, causing her de-gazettement and undertaking all consequential administrative actions without further delay.
“This is necessary to uphold the rule of law, safeguard the constitutional authority of the County Assembly and avert further legal and administrative uncertainty regarding the office of the County Executive Committee Member for Finance.”
The letter was copied to the Controller of Budget, the Auditor-General, the Machakos Senator, the Clerk of the County Assembly and the County Secretary, signalling that the Assembly wanted the country’s financial oversight institutions to be aware of the dispute.
The correspondence now throws new light on the budget deadlock that has gripped Machakos County.
By refusing to recognize Mutanu, the Assembly effectively declined to process budget documents presented by the county’s Finance Department under her authority.
Without a duly approved Budget Estimates and Appropriation Bill, county expenditure risks grinding to a halt once the legal spending window lapses.
The dispute later took another turn when Governor Wavinya relied on a court order to retain Mutanu in office, creating a direct conflict between the Executive’s interpretation of the court process and the Assembly’s insistence that its impeachment resolution remained valid and enforceable.
That conflict raises important constitutional questions.
The first is whether an impeachment resolution by a County Assembly automatically removes a County Executive Committee Member or whether further executive action, including de-gazettement, is required before the office falls vacant.
The second concerns the legal effect of a court order said to have suspended or affected the implementation of the Assembly’s decision.
Unless a court expressly quashed or stayed the impeachment resolution, constitutional lawyers argue that the scope of such an order becomes critical.
The third issue is whether a County Executive Committee Member whose removal has been approved by the Assembly can continue exercising official powers, including preparing and presenting county budgets, while litigation is pending.
These questions are likely to determine not only the fate of Catherine Mutanu but also the legality of financial decisions made during the period of the dispute.
Stay Anchored
