This archive report was first published on 10 August 2019.
On August 10, 2019, High Court Judge Mumbi Ngugi made a precedent-setting ruling that governors facing corruption charges should be barred from accessing their offices until cleared of the allegations.
The ruling was intended to create order during the process of pursuing graft cases and other serious offenses. It defies logic and natural justice when someone accused of stealing from the public is allowed to continue holding office, potentially interfering with evidence, intimidating witnesses, and compromising the process.
However, the enforcement of this ruling has been put to the test in Kiambu, where Governor Ferdinand Waititu is defying a court order and using semantics to justify his actions. Waititu argues that the ruling only blocks him from working from his Kiambu office, but he has the liberty to run the county from any location.
But what does it mean to be barred from office? It's not just about the physical structure or location; it's about the totality of the institution. In this case, Waititu's actions demonstrate that the ruling is not foolproof and can be interpreted conveniently to derail the course of justice.
There is a need for clarity on the implications, enforcement, and execution of this ruling. There should be no room for mischief where individuals can read and apply the law to serve their selfish interests. Ultimately, there must be retribution for acts of crime lest the law is used to fortify indiscretions.
