Kenyan Protesters Demand Ruto's Removal: Legal Paths and Civic Discontent

The political landscape in Kenya has been turbulent since June 2024, as waves of protests surged against President William Ruto's administration. The catalyst for these protests was the controversial Finance Bill 2024, which proposed punitive taxes that sparked widespread public outrage. Although President Ruto eventually withdrew the bill, the fire was already stoked, and protesters continue to demand his removal from office. This mass discontent underscores a deeper frustration with the current government's performance. But how feasible is the removal of a sitting president within the Kenyan legal framework?

The Controversial Finance Bill 2024

The Finance Bill 2024 was a tipping point for citizens, as it included several stringent measures that many viewed as financially oppressive. Critics argued that the proposed taxes would disproportionately affect the middle and lower classes, stifling economic growth and exacerbating poverty. The administration's decision to table such a bill during a time of economic uncertainty and post-pandemic recovery was seen as tone-deaf and prompted immediate backlash.

Protests erupted across the country with thousands taking to the streets, brandishing placards and chanting slogans against the government. The administration’s withdrawal of the bill was a response to this public outcry, yet it was too little, too late for many Kenyans. The withdrawal did little to quell the anger, with protesters now shifting their focus to a more aggressive demand: the removal of President Ruto from office.

The Role of the Opposition

The opposition, particularly the Azimio La Umoja Coalition, has played a significant role in organizing and sustaining these protests. The coalition has sought to capitalize on the public's discontent, attempting initiatives such as gathering 10 million signatures to pressure President Ruto into stepping down. While this move demonstrated the depth of public discontent, it held no constitutional relevance. Kenya’s legal framework does not recognize popular petitions as grounds for the removal of a sitting president.

However, the efforts of the opposition highlight the intensity of public sentiment and the lengths to which citizens are willing to go to hold their leaders accountable. It also raises questions about the effectiveness of such mass mobilization efforts within the boundaries of Kenya’s constitutional provisions.

Understanding Kenya's Legal Framework for Presidential Removal

The Kenyan constitution provides two main avenues for removing a sitting president: incapacity (Article 144) and impeachment (Article 145). These legal routes are structured to ensure that any removal process is thorough, just, and rooted in legislative protocol rather than public opinion alone.

Incapacity (Article 144)

To invoke Article 144, a member of the National Assembly must move a motion alleging that the president is incapable of performing the functions of the office. This motion requires the support of at least 25% of all National Assembly members. Once the motion gains this initial backing, the speaker of the National Assembly informs the chief justice, who is then responsible for appointing a special tribunal to investigate the claims of incapacity.

The tribunal, composed of legal and medical experts, investigates the allegations thoroughly. If the tribunal concludes that the president is indeed incapable, the National Assembly must then vote on the findings. A majority vote in favor of the tribunal’s conclusion would result in the president’s removal from office.

Impeachment (Article 145)

Article 145 outlines the impeachment process. For impeachment to proceed, a motion must be supported by at least 25% of all members of the National Assembly. If this threshold is met, the motion is debated and then requires approval by at least two-thirds of all members of the Senate.

If the Senate convicts the president, he is immediately removed from office, and the deputy president assumes the presidency. Subsequently, a new presidential election must be held within 60 days to elect a permanent replacement. This process ensures that impeachment is not taken lightly and that a significant portion of the legislative bodies agree on the motion before any action is taken.

The Reality of the Situation

It is crucial to note that public dissatisfaction and mass protests, no matter how widespread or intense, do not provide legal grounds for the removal of a sitting president. The laid-out constitutional processes are stringent and designed to prevent impulsive or politically motivated removals.

For President Ruto, the current protests represent a significant challenge, but they do not automatically translate into a threat to his presidency under the law. Instead, these protests could serve as a wake-up call for the administration to address the underlying issues plaguing the nation and to work more transparently and effectively to regain public trust.

Looking Ahead

The next presidential election in Kenya is slated for 2027, providing a democratic avenue for citizens to express their discontent through the ballot box. Until then, civil society and protesters are encouraged to adopt a constructive approach to advocacy and engage with the political process through lawful and peaceful means. Grassroots mobilization, public awareness campaigns, and active participation in local governance can be powerful tools for change.

The ongoing protests highlight the vibrant democratic spirit in Kenya, where citizens are unafraid to hold their leaders accountable. The challenge moving forward will be finding ways to channel this energy constructively and ensuring that any action taken aligns with the constitutional framework. The balance between civic activism and legal adherence is delicate but necessary for the country’s stability and democratic health.

The Impact on Kenya’s Political Landscape

The current situation could have long-term implications for Kenya’s political landscape. The intensity of the protests against President Ruto’s administration might influence future policy decisions by not just Ruto but also his successors. Political leaders may become more attuned to the public's pulse, realizing that unpopular decisions can ignite significant backlash.

Moreover, this episode could galvanize the opposition and civil society groups, making them more organized and influential in their advocacy efforts. As these groups work within the legal framework to pursue their objectives, they could pave the way for more formidable checks and balances on government power.

Conclusion

While the Kenyan constitution provides clear legal pathways for the removal of a sitting president, the current protests against President William Ruto underscore a broader narrative of civic discontent and the demand for accountable governance. By understanding and engaging with the established legal and democratic processes, citizens can work toward meaningful change without undermining the institutional frameworks that support Kenya’s democracy.

• Politics

Written by Marc Perel

I am a seasoned journalist specializing in daily news coverage with a focus on the African continent. I currently work for a major news outlet in Cape Town, where I produce in-depth news analysis and feature pieces. I am passionate about uncovering the truth and presenting it to the public in the most understandable way.