A ruling by Justice Mumbi Ngugi barring governors accused of corruption from accessing their offices during the period of trial, has sparked a wide debate among law practitioners.
A section of law practitioners have argued that the ruling will have a major impact on the future of most county bosses accused of corruption.
The debate comes after Kiambu Governor Ferdinand Waititu was presented in court on Monday and charged with corruption and abuse of office.
Consequently, citing from Justice Ngugi's ruling, Chief Magistrate Lawrence Mugambi barred Waititu from accessing his office,
National Super Alliance (NASA) Chief Executive Officer (CEO) Norman Magaya, who also doubles up as a lawyer termed the ruling 'inconclusive and problematic'.
“The High Court ruling is inconclusive and problematic in the sense that it doesn’t address this fundamental question. The constitution must be construed as a whole,” Magaya said as quoted by Standard.
On his part, University of Nairobi Law lecturer Ben Sihanya opined that the ruling may open up loopholes for other stakeholders with malicious intent.
"People in power can hatch a plan to remove a governor they do not want. All you will need is a criminal complaint and if the DPP agrees with it, the removal is done through ‘stepping aside’,” Prof Sihanya argued.
Lawyer Kennedy Murunga also disagreed with the ruling, stating that the only way a governor can be removed from office is through an election.
“The presumption of innocence until proven guilty must apply in all circumstances. The only way to remove an elected office holder is through an election,” Murunga said.