Supreme Court drives last nail in Sonko's political career after appeal flops

Former Nairobi governor Mike Sonko’s bid to return to elective politics or hold a public office has hit a dead end after the Supreme Court declined to reopen his impeachment case.

Sonko wanted the top court judges led by Chief Justice Martha Koome to review their judgment that led to his removal from office over violation of the Constitution and abuse of office charges.

But the judges threw out Sonko’s attempt to vary their July 15, 2022 ruling.

“Considering the totality of Sonko’s Motion, we are convinced that it is an attempt to relitigate issues already conclusively determined by this court. We have on numerous occasions expressed that the review was not intended to give a party an opportunity to appeal, or relitigate its case. Therefore, the applicant’s omnibus motion cannot be allowed to stand as it lacks merit,” the seven Judges ruled.

In their recent ruling, Justices Koome, Philomena Mwilu, Njoki Ndung’u, Isaac Lenaola, William Ouko, Mohammed Ibrahim, and Smokin Wanjala also found that Sonko failed to comply with Supreme Court rules governing review application filing.

Pay the costs

“The general rule is that once this Court delivers a judgment, it becomes functus officio save that, based on exceptional circumstances as delineated under Section 21A of the Supreme Court Act and Rule 28 (5) of the Supreme Court Rules, the Court can review its decision. Equally, the applicant (Sonko) did not invoke any of the said provisions in his Motion save for mentioning them in his submissions,” the judges ruled.

Koome-led-bench also ordered Sonko to pay the costs of the lawsuit after finding his application did not meet the threshold for a review. The former governor wanted the Judges to set aside their decision to dismiss his appeal against impeachment, delivered two years ago.

In his application for review, Sonko wanted the court to vary its decision and order for a re-opening and fresh hearing of the High Court petitions before a new bench of the High Court.

“The court be pleased to declare that the proceedings and subsequent orders emanating from the High Court petitions that gave rise to the appeal before this Court were a nullity and a mistrial,” he argued.

He had also sought to be allowed to adduce new evidence regarding the proceedings and Hansard of the Senate and videos regarding the impeachment proceedings that were allegedly marred with illegalities and were politically motivated.

The former governor also asked the Supreme Court to allow him to produce fresh evidence on rulings relating to his corruption and terrorism cases, which were subject to his impeachment and some have since been subsequently determined in his favour after he was acquitted of all the charges therein and absolved of wrongdoing.

Adducing additional evidence

Sonko’s bid for review of application had been backed by the former Speaker of Nairobi City County Assembly Benson Mutura and former Majority Leader Michael Ogada who laid bare the alleged illegalities surrounding the impeachment process. In their affidavits Mutura and Ogada told the Supreme Court judges that the Impeachment process at the assembly was allegedly marred with illegalities and was politically instigated.

“I was present when the motion to impeach Sonko was raised and considered before the county assembly; there was no lawful impeachment and the whole process was tainted with illegality as firstly, the proceedings were initiated as a result of political influence wherein Members of the County Assembly were intimidated and coerced through state machinery,” the former Speaker informed the judges.

Mutura also said that the impeachment of the former governor proceeded despite conservatory orders issued by the Employment and Labour Relations Court halting the same.

“Thirdly, there was no requisite quorum when the resolution to impeach Sonko was passed by the County Assembly, and the votes were cast by clerks as opposed to members of the County Assembly,” he said.

The former governor also wanted the Apex court to set aside its decision because Justice Said Chitembwe, who was part of the High Court bench that upheld his impeachment, was sacked for misconduct.

Sonko claimed that Chitembwe was biased and mischievous while handling his impeachment case.

He contended that the Tribunal’s decision to recommend the removal of the Judge has a bearing on the High Court judgment, which culminated in the appeal before the Supreme Court as the High Court Judgment remains tainted with a breach of the principles of natural justice enshrined under Articles 47 and 50 of the Constitution.

“The said Judge having been removed from office due to his misconduct in the High Court petitions meant that the joint judgment of the 3-Judge Bench of the High Court could not stand,” he said.

In their recent ruling, the seven judges found that Sonko did not invoke any legal provisions for adducing additional evidence in his review application.