A constitutional tool designed to ensure accountability has been sharpened into a political weapon. The impeachment of governors, once a rare and grave affair, is now a recurring drama in Kenya's devolved government, marked more by political maneuvering and procedural loopholes than by justice, leaving a trail of wasted public funds and eroding citizens' trust.

This matters profoundly because each failed impeachment paralyzes county operations, costs millions in legal and procedural fees, and entrenches a culture of impunity. The process, intended as a safeguard, is now widely viewed as a mechanism for MCAs to extort concessions from county executives or for national political players to settle scores, fundamentally undermining the spirit of devolution.

A Revolving Door of Accusations

Since 2013, at least 11 governors have faced impeachment by their county assemblies, yet only a handful have been successfully removed from office. The list of those who have survived the process reads like a who's who of county politics, including Kirinyaga's Anne Waiguru and, until recently, Meru's Kawira Mwangaza.

The case of Governor Mwangaza is particularly illustrative; she was impeached three times by her MCAs before the Senate finally upheld the motion in August 2024, a decision later affirmed by the High Court in March 2025. Conversely, Governor Waiguru survived her 2020 impeachment after a Senate committee found the charges unsubstantiated, a verdict she termed a "historic victory" against a politically motivated process. The only governors to be permanently removed via this process remain Kiambu's Ferdinand Waititu and Nairobi's Mike Sonko, whose ouster was confirmed by the Senate in December 2020.

Process Over Substance: The Senate's Escape Hatch

The path to impeachment is clearly defined: a motion supported by two-thirds of MCAs moves to the Senate, which can form an 11-member committee or hear the case in plenary. However, the high survival rate at the Senate has sparked intense debate. Many cases collapse not on the merit of the accusations but on legal technicalities.

A recent example is the December 2025 survival of Nyamira Governor Amos Nyaribo. His third impeachment attempt was terminated after the Senate ruled the county assembly failed to meet the constitutional two-thirds vote threshold, with 35 senators voting to dismiss the motion on this preliminary objection. This focus on procedure has led critics to argue that the Senate often avoids confronting the substantive allegations, turning a quasi-judicial process into a political calculation.

Analysts note several reasons for these acquittals:

• Weak Cases: MCAs often present poorly substantiated charges that cannot withstand Senate scrutiny.
• Political Horse-Trading: National political alignments frequently play a decisive role, with governors allied with the ruling coalition often seen as having a higher chance of survival.
• Procedural Failures: Simple mistakes at the county assembly level, like the failure to meet voting thresholds, provide an easy exit for the Senate.

The Staggering Cost of Political Feuds

While governors and MCAs trade accusations, the Kenyan taxpayer foots the bill. Each impeachment proceeding incurs significant costs, from lawyers' fees for both sides to the operational expenses of Senate committee hearings, which can run into millions of shillings. This drains public coffers that are meant for essential services like healthcare and infrastructure, directly impacting the lives of ordinary citizens.

The Council of Governors (CoG) has repeatedly decried the process, labeling it a tool for blackmail. Chaired by Anne Waiguru, the CoG has proposed legal reforms to curb the frequent motions, suggesting a prohibition on impeachments within the first two years of a governor's term and in the final year before a general election. This, they argue, would ensure stability and prevent MCAs from using the threat of impeachment as leverage for personal or political gain.

The ultimate question remains whether the impeachment process can be reformed to serve its intended purpose of accountability. As it stands, it often appears to be a broken system—a high-stakes political game where the only clear loser is the Kenyan public.