The legality of the proceedings that led to the impeachment of Isiolo Governor, Abdi Guyo, will be at the centre of focus as Senate Speaker Amason Kingi gazettes two days for a marathon trial.
The Star has learned that Guyo's defence team intends to challenge the legality of the impeachment process at the county assembly, while also preparing to refute the allegations levelled against the county boss.
Guyo is set to face senators to defend himself against the charges of gross violation of the constitution, abuse of office and gross misconduct.
On Tuesday, Kingi gazetted Tuesday and Wednesday next week for the hearing of the case after senators on Monday resolved to hear the matter in plenary.
However, questions have emerged about whether the assembly adhered to standing orders and existing laws, especially amid a court order barring MCAs from proceeding with the impeachment motion.
The controversy stems from the initial notice of motion introduced in the assembly on June 10, which prompted Guyo to obtain court orders halting any impeachment proceedings. Subsequently, on June 18, the assembly introduced what appeared to be a fresh motion – an apparent attempt to circumvent the court orders.
However, reports indicate that the MCAs neither sat in the official assembly chambers nor gazetted an alternative venue when introducing the new motion.
“If they sat in the Isiolo chambers, then they should produce video evidence showing the withdrawal of the initial motion, the introduction of a new one, the debate and the resolution to invite the governor to defend himself,” a source familiar with the developments said.
Despite the court order, 16 of the 18 MCAs convened on Thursday and voted unanimously to impeach the governor.
Guyo, who was reportedly invited to respond to the allegations, has denied receiving any formal communication from the assembly.
On Friday, Isiolo High Court Judge Heston Nyaga declared the impeachment null and void.
The judge also found county assembly speaker Mohamed Roba in contempt of court and ordered him to appear in person on June 30.
Speaker Kingi, however, did not address the legality of the county assembly’s actions when he read the charges in the Senate.
Senate sources indicated the House had not been barred from hearing the impeachment case.
“The governor is free to cite the court ruling as part of his defence in the Senate,” one senator said.
Justice Nyaga affirmed that the conservatory orders he issued on June 16 – which restrained the assembly from proceeding with the impeachment – remained in force.
“Those orders shall remain in force until set aside or reviewed either by this court, another court, or the Court of Appeal,” he ruled.
“Any acts by the respondents or any other party in defiance of the order shall be null and void.”
The governor had petitioned the court and obtained orders against the county assembly of Isiolo, the speaker and the clerk regarding the motion dated June 18.
Last Friday, Guyo’s lawyers – Eric Theuri and Elias Mutuma – filed a contempt of court application against the speaker and clerk.
Nyaga directed both to appear in person on June 30, to respond to the contempt allegations. This came after their legal team – Ekuru Aukot, Paul Wafula, Alex Mbaya and Boniface Mwereru – failed to confirm whether the assembly had complied with the court orders.
The court’s earlier conservatory order had explicitly barred the assembly from admitting, debating, or considering the June 10 impeachment motion until the governor’s legal challenge was determined.
Nevertheless, the assembly proceeded with what it described as a “momentous” session, defending its actions as legally justified and anchored in public accountability.
The assembly’s resolution was formally communicated to Kingi on June 27.
