The Sonko Impeachment Case has returned to the centre of national debate after the East African Court of Justice faulted Kenya’s Supreme Court for delays and procedural flaws.
The regional court delivered a sharp verdict that cut deep into the credibility of the country’s top judicial officers. It ruled that the Kenyan judiciary mishandled former Nairobi Governor Mike Sonko’s impeachment process and violated his right to a fair trial.
Although the EACJ did not overturn the Supreme Court ruling, it placed Kenya’s justice system under uncomfortable scrutiny.
Regional Court Exposes Major Flaws in the Sonko Impeachment Case
The EACJ ruled that Kenya’s judiciary failed to uphold the principles of fairness, good governance, and due process during the Sonko impeachment case. The judges noted that the Supreme Court moved with unusual urgency to block Sonko from contesting the Mombasa governorship in 2022. They criticised the unexplained fast-tracking of his hearing on July 14, 2022, just one day after a High Court gave him the green light to run.
The regional court stated that the Supreme Court’s conduct raised serious questions about impartiality and administrative interference. It ruled that the judiciary violated Article 25 of Kenya’s Constitution and Articles 6 and 7 of the East African Community Treaty. These provisions emphasise justice, good governance, and the rule of law.
The EACJ concluded that the Supreme Court’s action inflicted irreversible damage on Sonko’s political life. By permanently barring him from holding public office, the court said, Kenya’s judiciary caused “irreparable harm” to his career and reputation.
Although the regional court declined to reverse the decision that ended Sonko’s political ambitions, its judgment delivered a powerful reprimand. It exposed a justice system that appears selective, inconsistent, and vulnerable to internal pressure.
Judicial Delays Undermine Confidence in the Sonko Impeachment Case
The EACJ singled out the long delays in handling Sonko’s plea for a fair hearing. Sonko moved to the regional court after the Supreme Court upheld his impeachment and barred him from public office. He argued that Kenya’s judiciary had failed him at every critical point.
The regional judges agreed. They criticised the Kenyan courts for taking years to respond to key questions raised in his petition. The ruling highlighted a pattern of unexplained silence that contradicted the values of transparency and accountability that the country claims to uphold.
Sonko’s frustration deepened after his attempt to petition the Judicial Service Commission stalled. He wrote to the JSC on November 24, 2025, lamenting the Commission’s “inexplicable silence” over his three-year-old request to remove Chief Justice Martha Koome.
He accused the CJ of bias and improper administrative influence in the handling of his case. More than three and a half years later, JSC has still not issued a single response.
Koome and the JSC Face Rising Pressure Over the Sonko Impeachment Case
The EACJ ruling has increased pressure on the Judicial Service Commission, which appears unwilling to confront the controversy surrounding the Sonko impeachment case. Kenyans now question why a petition involving the Chief Justice can sit for years without acknowledgement.
The silence has fuelled claims that the judiciary shields its senior officials while leaving ordinary litigants in limbo. Sonko has demanded answers, but the JSC remains unmoved.
The regional court’s decision has now amplified those concerns. It stated that justice delayed is justice denied, and warned that Kenya’s judiciary risks losing public trust if it continues ignoring legitimate grievances.
The ruling placed Chief Justice Koome in an uncomfortable spotlight. Critics argue that she must explain the administrative actions that led to the rushed July 2022 hearing. Others say the JSC must finally address Sonko’s petition to prevent further erosion of public confidence.
Fallout From the Sonko Impeachment Case Signals a Bigger Judicial Crisis
The EACJ judgment has renewed debate on the independence and fairness of Kenya’s justice system. It exposed inconsistencies in how high-profile political cases are handled and highlighted a troubling pattern where certain files move with extraordinary speed while others face endless delays.
The Sonko Impeachment Case now stands as a symbol of a judiciary struggling with transparency and public trust. The regional ruling did not restore Sonko to office, but it validated his claims of unfair treatment and placed Kenya’s institutions under a regional microscope.
