Meru County Governor Kawira Mwangaza, who recently faced impeachment, has been granted a temporary reprieve by the High Court, which has suspended the Senate’s decision to permanently remove her from office. This decision comes in the midst of growing concerns about potential corruption within the judiciary.

Justice Bahati Mwamuye issued an order preventing Senate Speaker Amason Kingi from publishing a notice declaring the Meru County governorship vacant. The suspension raises questions about the legitimacy of the impeachment process and echoes concerns previously voiced by some, including prominent lawyer Ahmednasir Abdullahi, about corruption within Kenya’s judicial system.

Governor Mwangaza’s impeachment was based on three charges, all of which were upheld by the Senate, making her the third governor in Kenya’s history to face removal from office, following the impeachments of Ferdinand Waititu of Kiambu County and Mike Sonko of Nairobi County in 2020.

The first charge against Mwangaza involved gross violations of the Constitution and other laws. The Senate found her guilty of this charge, with 26 senators voting in favor, 4 against, and 14 abstaining. One of the key accusations was the illegal revocation of Virginia Kawira Miriti’s appointment as Secretary/CEO of the Meru County Public Service Board, a move that did not have the required majority vote from the County Assembly.

The second charge, gross misconduct, also saw 26 senators voting to impeach, while 4 opposed the motion, and 14 abstained. This charge was based on allegations that Mwangaza had misled the public by falsely claiming that Ksh 86 million had been raised through a Paybill number after the murder of Daniel Muthiani, alias Sniper. In reality, the amount raised was significantly lower, at just Ksh 286,516.

Finally, the third charge, abuse of office, garnered 27 votes in support of impeachment, with only one senator opposing and 14 abstaining.

The suspension of the impeachment has sparked a debate about the integrity of the process and the role of the judiciary in upholding or undermining democratic decisions. While some see the court’s intervention as a necessary check on potentially flawed political processes, others, like Ahmednasir Abdullahi, view it as a sign of deeper issues within the judiciary that need to be addressed.