Senate to decide fate of Nyaribo impeachment after objection is allowed

Senate to decide fate of Nyaribo impeachment after objection is allowed
Nyamira Governor Amos Nyaribo arrives at Parliament Buildings ahead of his proposed removal from office by impeachment hearing on December 3, 2025. PHOTO/SENATE
In Summary

Kingi explained that the matter will be handled through a formal Motion after a Notice of Motion has been issued. He added that senators will debate the objection and vote once the debate ends.

Nyamira Governor Amos Nyaribo will know today whether his impeachment process moves forward or stops entirely after Senate Speaker Amason Kingi allowed a preliminary objection filed by his legal team. The Senate is now expected to debate and vote on the objection, a decision that will either end the matter immediately or clear the way for a full hearing.

Nyaribo’s lawyers, led by Advocate Elias Mutuma, want the Senate to halt the proceedings, saying the County Assembly failed to meet the legal threshold required to remove a governor. Mutuma told the Senate that the Motion forwarded from the Assembly should not have reached the House.

“What you have is a lifeless Motion that cannot be entertained. Senators have many important matters to attend to rather than deal with this stillborn issue,” Mutuma submitted.

The governor has denied all accusations presented by the Nyamira County Assembly. During the first sitting of the hearings, the charges were read out to him by Senate Deputy Clerk Mohamed Ali, and he maintained that he was not guilty of any wrongdoing.

Speaker Kingi later directed that the Senate must first settle the objection before any other step is taken. If senators support the objection, Nyaribo will automatically survive the impeachment without a trial. If they reject it, the main hearing will begin.

Kingi explained that the matter will be handled through a formal Motion after a Notice of Motion has been issued. He added that senators will debate the objection and vote once the debate ends.

“To this end, I have directed the Clerk of the Senate to prepare and circulate a Supplementary Order Paper containing a Notice of Motion and the Motion limited to the preliminary objection on the threshold that was required for this impeachment,” he said.

“If the preliminary issue is upheld, this impeachment shall terminate forthwith. If, however, the preliminary issue is negated, the Senate will proceed to the main hearing of the impeachment proceedings,” Kingi stated.

The objection is centred on claims that the Nyamira County Assembly did not meet the constitutional two-thirds requirement to pass the impeachment resolution. Mutuma argued that the Assembly has 35 members, meaning at least 24 members were needed to vote in favour for the Motion to be valid.

He said the official records from the November 25, 2025 sitting show that only 19 members were in the chamber, yet the Assembly indicated 23 votes in support of the Motion. The lawyer called this “numerically impossible” and said it pointed to fraudulent conduct.

He added that since two-thirds of 35 is 23.33, the figure must be rounded up to 24, and not lowered based on claims of vacant seats. Nyaribo also told senators that the Assembly’s argument that existing vacancies reduced the required number from 35 to 32 was “legally flawed and absurd.”

The Assembly, through the clerk, responded that the two-thirds rule applies to the members present at any given time, not the total membership.

Nyaribo’s legal team dismissed this position, saying that any voting conducted through proxies was illegal. Mutuma said that no member had issued authority for another to vote on their behalf and that the four members listed as having cast proxy votes had sworn statements confirming they were absent and had not authorised anyone to vote for them.

The governor cited Standing Order 67 of the Nyamira County Assembly Standing Orders, which states that decisions must be made by members who are present and voting. He said proxy voting was prohibited and violated the principles of representation.

“It was Counsel’s case that the unauthorised casting of votes in the names of absent members without their authority constituted fraudulent misrepresentation, forgery, and impersonation, further vitiating the entire process,” Kingi’s communication states.

Join the Conversation

Enjoyed this story? Share it with a friend:

Latest Videos
MOST READ THIS MONTH

Stay Bold. Stay Informed.
Be the first to know about Kenya's breaking stories and exclusive updates. Tap 'Yes, Thanks' and never miss a moment of bold insights from Radio Generation Kenya.