In a significant ruling on July 2, 2025, the High Court in Isiolo nullified a second impeachment motion against Governor Abdi Ibrahim Hassan, popularly known as Guyo, dealing a blow to the Isiolo County Assembly’s efforts to oust the governor.
Justice H.M. Nyaga, in a strongly worded judgment, declared the motion, tabled on June 26, 2025, by assembly member Abubakar Godana, as a blatant violation of conservatory court orders issued just a day prior on June 25.
The court’s decision not only safeguards Governor Hassan’s position but also underscores the judiciary’s commitment to upholding the rule of law in the face of political maneuvering.
Background of the Impeachment Saga
The impeachment motion against Governor Hassan marks the second attempt by the Isiolo County Assembly to remove him from office, intensifying the political tensions in the region.
The first attempt, though not detailed in the ruling, had prompted Governor Hassan to seek judicial intervention, resulting in the issuance of conservatory orders on June 25, 2025.
These orders explicitly barred the County Assembly from proceeding with any impeachment-related actions pending the resolution of the governor’s constitutional challenge.
Undeterred, the County Assembly, led by Speaker Roba Halake and supported by member Abubakar Godana, tabled a fresh impeachment motion on June 26, 2025. This move was perceived by the court as a deliberate act of defiance, prompting Justice Nyaga to intervene decisively.
Court’s Ruling: A Stern Rebuke to the County Assembly
In his ruling, Justice Nyaga accused the County Assembly, its Speaker, and Godana of willfully disregarding the court’s directives.
The judge emphasized that the conservatory orders issued on June 25 were clear and binding, prohibiting any further impeachment proceedings until the court had fully adjudicated the matter.
By tabling the new motion, the respondents had not only undermined the authority of the court but also risked eroding public confidence in the judicial process.
“The actions of the County Assembly, the Speaker, and the mover of the motion constitute a clear and deliberate violation of this court’s orders,” Justice Nyaga stated. “Such conduct cannot be tolerated in a society governed by the rule of law.”
As a result, the court nullified the June 26 impeachment motion and issued an injunction barring the County Assembly, the Speaker, and Godana from making any further submissions related to the impeachment until they demonstrate full compliance with the court’s orders.
This ruling effectively halts all impeachment efforts against Governor Hassan, allowing him to continue his constitutional challenge unimpeded.
Governor Hassan’s Legal Strategy
Governor Hassan’s swift move to challenge the impeachment attempts in court has proven to be a strategic success. By securing conservatory orders and now a favorable ruling, the governor has managed to fend off what he and his supporters describe as politically motivated attacks.
Hassan’s legal team argued that the impeachment motions were not only procedurally flawed but also driven by vested interests seeking to destabilize his administration.
The court’s decision to allow Hassan to proceed with his constitutional case provides him with a platform to further contest the legality of the County Assembly’s actions.
Legal analysts suggest that the governor’s case could set a significant precedent for how impeachment proceedings are conducted at the county level, particularly in cases where political motivations are suspected to override public interest.
Respondents’ Right to Appeal
While the ruling is a victory for Governor Hassan, the court also granted the respondents—the County Assembly, the Speaker, and Godana—permission to challenge the decision at the Court of Appeal.
This provision ensures that the respondents have an opportunity to present their case before a higher court, potentially prolonging the legal battle. However, any appeal must address the court’s findings of deliberate non-compliance, which could pose a significant hurdle for the respondents.
Implications for Isiolo’s Political Landscape
The nullification of the impeachment motion has far-reaching implications for Isiolo’s political dynamics. Governor Hassan, who has been at the center of controversy since taking office, now enjoys a temporary reprieve, allowing him to focus on governance while his legal challenge unfolds.
However, the ongoing tensions between the governor and the County Assembly signal deeper divisions that could continue to hamper effective governance in the county.
For the County Assembly, the court’s rebuke serves as a cautionary tale about the consequences of disregarding judicial orders.
The ruling may also prompt greater scrutiny of the assembly’s procedures and motives, particularly if the public perceives the impeachment efforts as politically driven rather than based on substantive grounds.
Legal and Constitutional Context
The impeachment of a county governor in Kenya is governed by Article 181 of the Constitution, which outlines the grounds for removal, including gross violation of the Constitution, abuse of office, or gross misconduct.
The process requires a motion supported by at least two-thirds of the county assembly members, followed by approval from the Senate. However, the judiciary plays a critical role in ensuring that such processes adhere to legal and constitutional standards, as demonstrated in this case.
Justice Nyaga’s ruling reinforces the judiciary’s role as a check against arbitrary or unlawful actions by county assemblies. It also highlights the importance of conservatory orders in protecting public officials from premature or unjust removal from office while their cases are pending.
What’s Next for Governor Hassan and Isiolo County?
As Governor Hassan prepares to advance his constitutional challenge, the focus will likely shift to the substantive issues raised in his petition. These may include allegations of procedural irregularities, political vendettas, or violations of his rights as a governor.
The outcome of this case could have significant implications not only for Hassan’s tenure but also for the broader framework governing county-level impeachments in Kenya.
Meanwhile, the County Assembly faces the challenge of regrouping and addressing the court’s concerns about compliance. Should they pursue an appeal, they will need to present a compelling case to overturn the High Court’s ruling.
Failure to do so could further weaken their position and embolden critics who view the impeachment attempts as frivolous.
Looking Ahead…
The High Court’s decision to nullify the second impeachment motion against Isiolo Governor Abdi Ibrahim Hassan marks a pivotal moment in the county’s ongoing political drama.
By upholding the rule of law and protecting the governor’s right to a fair legal process, the court has sent a clear message about the sanctity of judicial orders.
As the legal battle moves forward, all eyes will be on Isiolo, where the outcome of this case could shape the county’s political future and set important precedents for governance across Kenya.
Share This Post