Kericho Governor Erick Mutai has once again defied political gravity, surviving an impeachment motion for the second time in less than a year. The Senate’s decision, announced on August 29, 2025, linked on a key finding: the Kericho County Assembly failed to meet the constitutional threshold of 32 Members of County Assembly (MCAs) required to initiate his removal.
The proceedings, which captivated the nation, saw 26 Senators oppose the impeachment, while 16 supported it, ultimately allowing Governor Mutai to retain his position. Speaker Amason Kingi declared the motion “negatived,” stating, “The result of the division indicates that the motion has been negatived. Consequently, the impeachment hearing hereby terminates.” The ruling followed a preliminary objection raised by Mutai’s legal team, led by Counsel Katwa Kigen, who argued that only 31 MCAs, not the required 32, had voted in favor of the impeachment motion in the County Assembly.
The impeachment ordeal, which began with allegations of financial mismanagement, nepotistic appointments, and intimidation of county staff, saw Governor Mutai impeached by the Kericho County Assembly on August 15. The County Assembly’s electronic vote indicated 33 out of 47 ward representatives supported the motion. However, the credibility of this electronic voting system became a central point of contention during the Senate hearings.
Witnesses presented conflicting accounts regarding the voting process. MCA Hillary Kibet, appearing as a witness for Governor Mutai, alleged he was offered Ksh.200,000 and trips to Dubai and Rwanda to support the impeachment motion, insisting he did not vote despite his name appearing on the list of those who did. He even presented an audio recording, which the County Assembly’s legal team dismissed as fabricated. Another witness, MCA Amos Kimtai, admitted speaking to Governor Mutai before the vote and assuring him of his intention not to support the motion, though his testimony was later contradicted on several issues.
A group of fourteen other MCAs seconded the sentiments, denying they voted for the governor’s removal and criticizing the new electronic voting system, claiming they were not trained on its use and suspected malice. Nominated MCA Chepng’enoh Gabriella Langat clarified that if a member does not cast a vote, it is deemed an abstention and not captured in the assembly votes. However, several MCAs, including Paul Bii and Norman Kipsigei Rop, stated their abstentions were not reflected in the official tally.
ICT expert Kipng’eno Geofrey Bett, formerly the Chief Officer for ICT, testified about the development of the electronic voting system, revealing it went live only two days before the vote. Concerns were raised about the system’s security, including the use of payroll and ID numbers as login passwords, and claims that a single IP address was linked to nine votes. Senator Otieno Kajwang expressed amazement at the County Assembly’s counsel admitting to copying and pasting logs, noting that logs are only verifiable if extracted in the presence of both parties.
Governor Mutai, who received the impeachment report on August 6, the same day the motion was tabled, stated he had little time to analyze and respond. He appealed for a second chance, pledging to implement recommendations from investigative reports and build constructive working relationships with the County Assembly and other leaders.
This marks a significant victory for Governor Mutai, but it also casts a shadow on the integrity of the County Assembly’s processes and the reliability of digital voting systems in such critical proceedings.
The Senate’s decision indicated the importance of adhering to constitutional thresholds and due process in impeachment attempts.
