COMMENTARY
By Martin Masai
Machakos County Assembly has fired the opening salvo in its bid to remove Finance, Economic Planning and Revenue Management CECM Catherine Mutanu Raphael from office.
But despite Tuesday’s dramatic vote approving an impeachment motion, the process has only just begun and the battle will be as brutal as it will be difinitive.
Contrary to public perception, that impeachment of Mutanu is as good as done, far from it.
Assembly did not impeach the county minister. It merely found that the allegations presented by Mbiuni MCA Peter Kilonzo were sufficiently weighty to warrant a formal investigation and approved the motion.
As a consequence, Speaker Ann Kiusya’s decided to constitute a five-member Ad Hoc Committee, marking the beginning of what is legally the most critical phase of the process.
This is where evidence—not politics—will determine whether the Assembly has a case capable of surviving both the House and, potentially, the courts.
The committee, chaired by Deputy Speaker Stephen Mwanthi- a known ally of Governor Wavinya Ndeti- and comprising Majority Leader Nicholas Nzioka, Deputy Minority Leader Francis Ngunga, Paul Wambua and Philip Ndolo, has ten days to investigate allegations that Mutanu committed gross violation of the Constitution and other laws, abused office, engaged in gross misconduct and demonstrated incompetence.
Those are not mere political accusations. They are legal grounds expressly provided under Section 40 of the County Governments Act and each carries a high evidentiary threshold.
The committee cannot simply restate accusations made on the floor of the House.
It must establish facts, gather documentary evidence, hear witnesses, accord the CECM a full opportunity to defend herself and demonstrate how each allegation meets the statutory test.
Failure to do so would summarily collapse the entire process.
Kenyan courts have repeatedly made it clear that while county assemblies enjoy constitutional oversight powers, impeachment is not a political free-for-all tool.
Courts have consistently held that removal proceedings must comply with the Constitution, the County Governments Act and the principles of fair administrative action.
That means Mutanu must receive all allegations in advance, access evidence relied upon against her, appear before the committee with legal representation if she wishes, call witnesses and challenge evidence presented against her.
Should the committee deny her those rights, the process would be vulnerable to judicial review regardless of how determined the assembly is, to remove her from office.
Equally important is the committee’s obligation to distinguish political disagreements from legal misconduct.
For example, accusations of incompetence require objective evidence demonstrating failure to discharge statutory duties—not merely dissatisfaction with policy choices.
Similarly, allegations of abuse of office demand proof that official authority was improperly exercised for unlawful or improper purposes.
Gross violation of the Constitution requires demonstrating serious breaches of constitutional or statutory obligations.
These are legal questions requiring evidence, not political speeches.
Ironically, recent events may provide the committee with additional material.
The Assembly has openly complained that the Finance Department has allegedly failed to remit funds to the Assembly since April, forcing it to borrow money to pay salaries for Members of County Assembly and staff.
Separately, Mutanu has also been accused of disregarding Assembly resolutions concerning implementation of the new valuation roll, although Roads and Lands CECM Nathaniel Nganga responded on behalf of the Executive, arguing that events had overtaken the Assembly’s position and questioning the Speaker’s legal interpretation.
Whether these matters amount to constitutional violations or administrative disagreements is precisely what the committee must determine through evidence.
The investigation therefore becomes far more important than Tuesday’s vote.
Once the committee tables its report, the Assembly will have to decide whether the evidence actually supports removal.
If it does, the House must still satisfy itself that the statutory grounds have been proved before recommending dismissal.
Even then, the matter may not end there.Should Mutanu challenge the process in court, judges are unlikely to interfere merely because they disagree with the Assembly’s conclusions.
However, they will closely examine whether constitutional safeguards were observed, whether the committee acted fairly and whether its findings were supported by evidence.
Kenyan jurisprudence has consistently shown that courts are reluctant to interfere with legislative processes, but they will not hesitate to invalidate an impeachment tainted by procedural unfairness, denial of due process or abuse of constitutional power.
For that reason, Tuesday’s vote should not be viewed as the climax of the saga.
It was only the gateway.
The real battle now shifts from the Assembly floor to the committee room, where allegations must be transformed into admissible evidence capable of withstanding legal scrutiny.
If the committee succeeds, the Assembly will have laid a strong legal foundation for removal.
If it falls short, what appeared politically decisive could ultimately become legally indefensible.
But going by previous case of her predecessor Onesmus Kuyu, the Governor could easily upstage the Assembly by removing her from the money docket, like she did by moving Kuyu to Water and Sanitation. If that happened, then the Assembly would be left holding the feathers- not the bird.
It now seems the very same accusations Kuyu faced are the same ones Mutanu is facing- showing that they act on instructions from a higher authority.
That authority ought to be the target.
Stay Anchored
