Isiolo Governor Abdi Ibrahim Hassan has survived attempt to remove him from office through impeachment after the Senate questioned the process of his impeachment by the County Assembly and voted to save him.

Members of the County Assembly (MCAs) voted to impeach the Governor on June 26, accusing him of violating the constitution and other laws, abuse of office and gross misconduct.

The matter did not get to the full trial as it was settled on the preliminary objections filed by the Governor through his legal team.

The Governor argued that the purported impeachment Motion as presented by the MCAs failed to meet the criteria and legal threshold under Article 181 of the Constitution, Section 33 of the County Governments Act.

They pleaded with the Senators to uphold the objection to the process and acquit the Governor.

A total of 31 Senators voted to save the Governor,12voted to have the matter taken to full trial while none abstained.

 “The process is as important as the reasons for removal of the Governor from office,” said Senator Boni Khalwale when he contributed to the Motion leading to the vote.

“I want the MCAs to respect the process of removing Governors as detailed in the Constitution.”

Senator Danson Mungatana questioned the conduct of the MCAs arguing that there was neither evidence of notice of Motion, minutes of the House Business Committee of Isiolo County that approved the Motion and the video evidence of sitting.

“We are wasting time discussing a meeting that never was,” said Senator Mungatana.

Senator Enock Wambua said the process is as important as the outcome. “The process must bear us out. We cannot circumvent the process and MCAs must get the process right.”

They further argued that the impeachment Motion forwarded by the County Assembly was a sham, null and void and of no legal consequence to warrant admissibility, interrogation or any other action of the Senate.

He said the ward representatives disregarded conservatory orders issued by the High Court in Meru.

The Governor also objected to the proceedings in the Assembly, leading to the impeachment, arguing that they had “salient gaps” that rendered the process a nullity.

The Governor’s legal team argued that there was no valid or competent Motion for removal by way of impeachment of the Governor, passed by a resolution of the County Assembly.

“There was no valid resolution of the House that warrants the Senate to consider,” said Mr .Eric Theuri, the Advocate for the Governor, who described the outcome at the County Assembly as “phantom Impeachment”.

“The County Assembly of Isiolo did not deliberate to hear the impeachment proceedings of the Governor,” said Mr. Theuri, expressing fear that the Hansard presented to the House was a misrepresentation of what transpired.

“The Hansard records have been cooked and were generated outside the precincts of the County Assembly.”

He argued that the High Court had invalidated the proceedings of the County Assembly of June 26, 2025, declared the resolutions to impeach the Governor as null and void and of no legal consequence.

Documents submitted to the Senate by the County Assembly indicate the notice for the impeachment Motion was given on June 18, 2025.

The debate of the Motion was scheduled for debate on June 26, 2025 at 2.30PM.

However, in between, the Speaker of the Assembly changed the time and instead issued a notice calling for a Special sitting on June 26 at 9.00am.

Letters of invitation to the Governor to attend the sitting indicated that the sitting was to be held at 9.00am. However, the Hansard report of the proceedings produced in the House indicated that the sitting took place at 2.30PM.

In his submission, Mr. Theuri challenged the House to review the documents submitted to the House relating to the sitting arguing that they failed the legal test, rendering the impeachment proceedings questionable.

 “If anything, the Hansard records presented to this House by the County Assembly were not certified. The record just bears a stamp which the Governor believes is a misrepresentation of facts,” he said.

He said there were anomalies between the Hansard and other records presented to the House. For example, the notice from the Speaker indicates that the special sitting was held at 9am.

Advocate Elias Mutuma, also for the Governor, insisted that a review of the Hansard indicates it is not clear whether the House made a resolution on the impeachment or not.