Isiolo County has now become the latest theatre for a high-stakes political drama, as its Governor, Abdi Ibrahim Guyo, faces impeachment by the County Assembly over a litany of grave allegations. This move, which comes amidst swirling legal complexities, signals a decisive stand by the county legislators to demand accountability from the highest office.
On Thursday, in a move that underscored the deep-seated grievances within the county's leadership, the Isiolo County Assembly passed a motion to oust Governor Guyo. A significant majority of 16 out of 18 Members of the County Assembly (MCAs) present voted in favour of the impeachment, with two abstentions and no opposition. The outcome of this vote reflects a profound lack of confidence in the Governor's leadership, propelling the matter into the national spotlight and setting the stage for a critical determination by the Senate.
Click Link To Watch More On This
Click Link To Watch More On This
The impeachment motion, initially tabled by Sericho MCA Abubakar Godana on June 10, 2025, articulated a litany of accusations against Governor Guyo. Among the most prominent allegations were claims of gross misconduct, abuse of office, and flagrant violations of various laws and the Constitution. Specific concerns raised included the alleged stalling of crucial development projects, a failure to meet ambitious revenue targets—a vital measure of fiscal responsibility—and the creation of an executive structure deemed excessively bloated. The latter point is particularly contentious, as the Governor was accused of appointing an staggering 36 advisors and 31 chief officers, a seemingly untenable number given Isiolo County's unenviable position as receiving the third-lowest revenue allocation in the entire country.
Further accusations revolved around the Governor's alleged handling of human resources, particularly concerning chief officers. Governor Guyo was faulted for issuing short-term, two-year contracts to chief officers, a practice the Assembly claimed fostered an "environment of fear and uncertainty" within the county administration. Compounding this, the motion alleged that the governor failed to renew the contracts of 20 chief officers, opting instead to selectively renew only five through a process described by the Assembly as questionable. These accusations, collectively, painted a picture of administrative mismanagement and potentially arbitrary decision-making that undermined good governance.
A significant procedural dimension to this impeachment saga is the Governor's non-appearance before the Assembly to defend himself. Despite being formally invited to address the weighty accusations leveled against him, Governor Guyo failed to show up, leaving the Assembly to proceed with the motion in accordance with its Standing Orders and relevant legal provisions. This absence, while within his prerogative, has undoubtedly fueled the narrative of the Assembly's resolve.
However, the path to impeachment has been anything but straightforward. The Assembly's proceedings occurred despite a crucial court order that ostensibly barred them from moving forward with the motion. On June 17, Justice Heston Nyaga of the High Court in Isiolo had certified an application filed by the Governor as urgent. The court had expressly ordered that the impeachment motion "not be admitted, processed, debated or considered pending the hearing and determination of the case." Governor Guyo had moved to court alleging violations of due process by the Assembly and Speaker Mohamed Roba, specifically seeking access to the motion documents, which the court had directed be furnished within 48 hours. The Assembly's decision to proceed despite this order introduces a significant legal challenge that will likely play out in higher courts.
