Sonko Seeks Fresh Hearing of Impeachment Case After Judge’s Misconduct Findings

Former Nairobi Governor Mike Sonko is seeking another legal battle over his impeachment, asking the High Court to reconsider judgments that upheld his removal from office following findings of judicial misconduct against former judge Said Juma Chitembwe.

High Court Judge Gregory Mutai has directed that Sonko’s petition be determined at the earliest opportunity, bringing renewed attention to the long-running dispute over the legality of the former governor’s removal.

At the centre of Sonko’s application is his argument that Chitembwe’s participation in a three-judge bench that dismissed his challenge to the impeachment undermined the fairness and constitutional validity of the proceedings.

Sonko maintains that subsequent findings against the former judge raise serious questions about whether the original case was heard by an impartial bench.

The petition seeks to reopen a dispute that has already passed through the courts, raising a significant legal question: can findings of judicial misconduct made after a judgment justify setting aside decisions that have already been upheld on appeal?

Sonko challenges the original judgment

Sonko wants the High Court to declare the original judgment delivered on June 24, 2021, together with subsequent appellate decisions, a nullity.

He argues that the findings against Chitembwe are relevant to the proceedings in which the former judge participated and should be considered when determining whether his constitutional right to a fair hearing was respected.

In support of his case, Sonko relies on a Supreme Court decision upholding findings against Chitembwe. He contends that the established misconduct has implications for the integrity of the judicial process surrounding his impeachment challenge.

However, the petition presents allegations and legal arguments that the court must assess. The findings against an individual judge do not, by themselves, automatically invalidate every judgment in which that judge participated.

The court will have to consider the connection between the misconduct findings and the specific proceedings Sonko wants reopened, alongside the constitutional and procedural requirements governing the review of concluded cases.

What Sonko wants the court to order

Beyond seeking to nullify the previous judgments, the former governor wants the consolidated petitions challenging his impeachment reheard on their merits before an expanded bench appointed by the Chief Justice.

He is also seeking orders to restrain the respondents from enforcing the disputed judgments while his petition is being considered.

Other reliefs sought include an order directing Kenya Law Reports to remove the affected decisions from its online records, as well as exemplary and punitive damages over the alleged violation of his constitutional rights.

The requests, if granted, could have implications beyond Sonko’s individual case, particularly concerning the circumstances in which litigants may seek to reopen concluded proceedings following allegations or findings of judicial misconduct.

For now, the remedies remain requests made by the petitioner. The court has yet to determine, on the information provided, whether Sonko has established sufficient grounds for the orders he seeks.

A wider question about judicial accountability

The case raises a difficult issue for Kenya’s justice system: how should courts respond when a judge is subsequently found to have engaged in misconduct, but judgments delivered by that judge have already become part of the established judicial record?

The right to a fair hearing is protected under Article 50 of the Constitution of Kenya. At the same time, the legal system places importance on finality in litigation, ensuring that disputes do not remain open indefinitely without a recognised legal basis for reopening them.

Sonko’s petition places these principles in tension. His argument is that the circumstances surrounding Chitembwe’s participation warrant fresh scrutiny, while the court must determine whether the alleged connection provides a legally sufficient basis to revisit the earlier decisions.

The outcome will depend on the evidence, the applicable law and the court’s assessment of the reliefs sought.

What happens next?

Justice Mutai’s direction that the petition be determined at the earliest opportunity signals the need for the dispute to be addressed without unnecessary delay. It does not, however, amount to a ruling in Sonko’s favour or establish that the earlier judgments are invalid.

The High Court will need to consider the legal effect of the misconduct findings, the circumstances of the original proceedings and whether the Constitution and applicable law permit the orders requested.

For Sonko, the petition represents another attempt to challenge the legal decisions that upheld his removal from office. For the judiciary, it presents an opportunity to address the relationship between judicial accountability, the right to an impartial hearing and the finality of court judgments.

The central question remains whether the circumstances cited by the former governor meet the legal threshold required to reopen a dispute that has already undergone appellate review.