Why President Ruto could be impeached

President William Ruto was in the furnace on Tuesday afternoon over his criticism of Parliament as inherently corrupt, but it could get hotter if lawmakers make good their threats against the Head of State.

In a fiery debate, a large section promised drastic action against Dr Ruto, the most consequential of which were impeachment and censure. Although the threat of impeachment was made in passing, that of censure was more direct.

“We are now going to exercise our teeth,” said Bumula MP Jack Wamboka. “We are now going to bite, and… as we speak, I have tabled a censure Motion. It is before you, Honourable Speaker. It is coming.”

The Standard could not independently verify whether Wamboka had, indeed, filed the Motion owing to the contradictions in his remarks. We could not reach Wamboka by the time we went to press.

A censure Motion is an official admonishment of a person’s character. While it does not amount to the removal of a president, it carries the potential of initiating an impeachment.

Like other Motions, MPs vote on proposed resolutions, which may include a declaration that a person is unfit to hold office, potentially triggering an impeachment case.

Article 145 of the Constitution sets the grounds for removing the President as a gross violation of the Constitution or any other law, serious reasons to believe the President committed a crime, or gross misconduct. 

Such impeachment can only originate from the National Assembly, and would only sail through to the Senate if supported by two-thirds of the members. The Senate acts as the trial chamber. A similar majority is required in the Senate to uphold the impeachment.

Majority Leader Kimani Ichung’wah, a staunch Ruto ally, alluded to impeachment when he said: “This House has powers to impeach those in the Executive and those in the Executive can do nothing to remove you from this House.”

On Monday, Ruto doubled down on claims that MPs were soliciting bribes for favourable reports, claiming that unspecified members of the National Assembly Justice and Legal Affairs Committee (JLAC) had received a Sh10 million bribe to pass a government-sponsored anti-money laundering Bill. He also alluded to a Sh150 million bill sought by a Senate committee, but did not table evidence of the same.

Ruto argued that his assertions were backed by “raw intelligence” he said he had accessed. A day later, he would form an anti-corruption task force that the courts halted yesterday. He had made similar claims during last week’s devolution conference in Homa Bay.

“There is something happening in Parliament that must be called out. There is money being demanded from executives, from governors, from people in executive, especially those who are for accountability,” he said.

JLAC chairperson, Gitonga Murugara, challenged the Head of State to name those involved in the alleged bribery, even as he denied wrongdoing. Similarly, the Senate demanded the said evidence, with lawmakers from both houses seeking Ruto to be summoned over his remarks.

“Mr Speaker, authorise the powers and privileges committee to summon the president or, if not the President, the Head of Public Service or the Secretary to the Cabinet to come and tell us about these allegations,” said Rarieda MP Otiende Amollo.

Whether or not Parliament will act on the Head of the State remains to be seen, as he has mostly control of the bicameral house. Censure or summoning could have repercussions for Ruto and potentially set him up for impeachment.

Former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua, who was impeached late last year, faced a censure Motion at the Senate over his “shareholding” remarks, which critics argued discriminated against ethnic minorities.