The Constitution envisaged impeachment as the ultimate check on political power.Barely 14 years later, this process has been used to remove at least five governors from office.
Whereas the jury is out on whether all the impeachments met the necessary threshold, it can also be argued that at least one of those processes failed to rise to the standard.
This ease of impeachment creates a perverse incentive structure where the instrument is the path of least resistance when it comes to removing a governor from office outside an election .
To be sure, the current trajectory in Kenyan politics suggests that impeachment is being deployed with increasing regularity, often in situations where the grounds may be more political than substantive.
This trend dilutes the gravity of impeachment, transforming it from a rare and serious action into a common political tactic.
Such a shift is dangerous because it undermines the intended constitutional safeguard and erodes public confidence in the integrity of the process.
Take, for instance, the recent removal of Meru Governor Kawira Mwangaza on charges she had previously been acquitted of in the trial held in late 2023. The decision speaks to this sphere of things.
In the broader scheme of things, governors striving to serve their constituents effectively may find themselves vulnerable to political manoeuvering and targeted attacks, fearing the spectre of impeachment even when their performance is commendable.
This creates a perverse incentive to prioritise political expediency over public service, potentially hindering the progress and development of their counties.
Furthermore, this trend poses a significant threat to the rule of law. While the Constitution aims to hold those in power accountable, the current application of impeachment undermines this very goal.
Governors who, despite their flaws, remain committed to serving their constituents may find themselves removed from office for political reasons rather than actual malfeasance.
Needless to say, governors who engage in blatant abuse of office, corruption, or gross negligence may escape accountability due to the lack of a strong legal framework and the perception of impeachment as a political tool rather than a judicial one.
This creates a dangerous imbalance where the pursuit of political gain outweighs the pursuit of justice, leading to a culture of impunity and a weakening of the very institutions that are meant to protect the people.
On top of that, the frequent use of impeachment waters down its deterrent effect. Impeachment should hold the aura of nuclear authority in politics; it’s so fearsome that its mere existence serves as a deterrent.
However, as it becomes more commonplace, this aura fades, and with it, the power of impeachment to check genuine abuses of power.
To preserve the sanctity of the impeachment process, MCAs should exercise restraint and exhaust all other avenues of checks and balances, such as oversight, legislative controls, and public pressure.
Impeachment should be reserved for the most egregious cases of misconduct – instances where a governor’s actions are so detrimental to the public good that their removal from office is not only justified but necessary.
It should be an instrument of last resort, employed only when all other avenues of accountability have been exhausted.
— The writer is a commentator on current affairs
