Former Nairobi Governor Mike Mbuvi Sonko testified in court that his refusal to sign the county budget was at the centre of his dispute with the national government and preceded his impeachment.
Sonko said he declined to approve the budget after consulting the county attorney and his lawyers, who, he said, advised him that there was no clear legal framework allowing the county to fund certain functions transferred to it by the national government.
Sonko was defending himself against corruption charges after a Nairobi court ruled that there is sufficient evidence for his case to proceed to the defense stage.
He said the transferred functions included transport and infrastructure, health, education and housing.
He told the court that signing the budget without a proper legal framework would have exposed him to personal liability in the future.
“I was consulting my lawyers. They told me that there was no legal framework to allow the funding of the transferred functions,” Sonko said.
He said he subsequently discussed the matter with then-President Uhuru Kenyatta, explaining why he had refused to sign the budget.
Sonko maintained the disagreement over the budget was one of the main issues that eventually contributed to his removal from office.
Sonko defended himself against allegations surrounding his impeachment, saying he opposed the process because he believed it was politically motivated and contrary to the law.
He recalled that the impeachment proceedings were televised and claimed that a significant number of Members of the County Assembly supported him.
Sonko said about 76 MCAs were on his side during the proceedings, arguing that the majority did not initially support his removal.
The matter later proceeded to the Senate, where Sonko alleged that some senators publicly claimed they had been offered bribes to vote for his removal.
He said the allegations involved payments allegedly intended to influence senators to support the impeachment.
Sonko said that after his removal, he continued challenging the decision through the courts.
Sonko was also questioned about his opposition to the demolition of structures and various development projects in Nairobi.
He linked some of the disputes to what he described as investments associated with members of the former first family.
He referred to companies and investments, including Home Choice Holdings Limited and Northlands, while being questioned about alleged interests connected to the former first family.
Sonko was asked to explain the interests he believed the family had in Nairobi and why those interests were relevant to his opposition to certain county decisions.
He also defended his popularity among Nairobi residents at the time, saying his support among voters influenced his opposition to actions that he believed would affect the people who had elected him.
Sonko further explained his opposition to the demolition of structures in parts of Nairobi, saying some of the demolitions were carried out without adequate consultation.
He argued that affected residents should have been engaged before such action was taken and said the issue was particularly important because of the potential impact on residents who had supported him at the ballot.
He maintained that his decisions were informed by his interpretation of the law and his responsibility to protect the interests of Nairobi residents.
Sonko told the court that he subsequently challenged his impeachment through a petition before the High Court.
Email your news TIPS to Editor@Kahawatungu.com — this is our only official communication channel
