Why Kingi temporarily halted Guyo’s impeachment proceedings
By Mabonga Makhanu, July 8, 2025Senate Speaker Amason Kingi has suspended the Senate sitting convened to hear the impeachment case against Isiolo Governor Abdi Ibrahim Hassan Guyo for 30 minutes.
The suspension, which took place on Tuesday, July 8, 2025, at 3:49 p.m., was to allow for the circulation of the supplementary order paper. Speaker Kingi cited Standing Order 38 to justify the brief adjournment, noting that the break would give senators time to deliberate on preliminary issues raised by both parties and ensure the House makes a fair and informed decision.
“Having concluded the hearing of preliminary issues raised pursuant to standing order 38 for the convenience of the Senate, I hereby suspend the sitting for 30 minutes to allow for preparation and circulation of the order paper that will allow the Senate to make a just and fair ruling on the issues raised,” Kingi said.
Following the break, senators are expected to vote on whether the motion to proceed with the impeachment hearing should continue or be halted, depending on the merit of the objections raised by the governor’s legal team.
Guyo’s concerns
Governor Guyo’s lawyers have argued that the impeachment motion is null and void, citing a High Court ruling issued in Meru on June 25, 2025. The court had issued conservatory orders, declaring the County Assembly’s move unconstitutional. However, the Assembly went ahead with the impeachment vote on June 26, allegedly in defiance of the court’s directive.
The legal team insists that the Senate cannot entertain a process that violates a standing court order and has asked the House to dismiss the motion in its entirety. Senators will now decide whether these arguments hold legal ground before determining the next course of action.
The governor’s legal team also pointed to a series of procedural flaws in the impeachment process. Lawyer Eric Theuri described the process as a “phantom” one, claiming the County Assembly failed to comply with mandatory legislative protocols, including the gazettement of the motion and public disclosure of the Assembly’s sitting venue. Theuri argued that the entire process lacked transparency and violated statutory requirements.
Elias Mutuma’s concern
Further concerns were raised by lawyer Elias Mutuma, who accused the Assembly of submitting doctored documents to the Senate. He noted inconsistencies in official records, including a Hansard report that indicated the sitting was held at 2:30 p.m., yet Governor Guyo’s invitation showed it was scheduled for 9:00 a.m. Additionally, the Hansard was not certified by the Assembly Clerk and bore only a stamp, which raised doubts about its authenticity.
The legal team also argued that Governor Guyo was not properly invited to defend himself before the Assembly, which denied him a fair hearing. They challenged the Assembly’s failure to provide evidence—such as video recordings—showing the withdrawal of the initial motion, the introduction of a new one, or any formal invitation extended to the governor.
In support of their objections, Guyo’s lawyers cited a recent Senate precedent involving Kericho Governor Eric Mutai, whose impeachment was terminated after it was established that the County Assembly did not meet the required two-thirds threshold. They maintained that similar legal and procedural irregularities in Guyo’s case should lead the Senate to dismiss the motion.
After the 30-minute break, senators will return to vote on whether the issues raised by the governor’s legal team warrant the termination of the proceedings or if the impeachment hearing should continue.