The Case for Impeaching President Ruto

 

The Case for Impeaching President Ruto: A Constitutional and Political Imperative

Kenya stands at a critical juncture in its democratic evolution. The proposed referendum to impeach President William Ruto is not just a legal or political maneuver but a profound reflection of the public’s dissatisfaction with governance, economic mismanagement, and constitutional accountability. While some argue that the move undermines the presidency and threatens political stability, a closer examination reveals that removing Ruto through a referendum is both justified and necessary for Kenya’s democratic integrity.

1. The Constitutional Basis for Impeachment

Article 145 of the Kenyan Constitution outlines the process of impeaching a sitting president, primarily through parliamentary mechanisms. However, this process has been rendered ineffective due to the dominance of the executive over the legislature. A referendum, while not explicitly mentioned as a removal mechanism, aligns with the spirit of the Constitution by emphasizing public sovereignty as enshrined in Article 1, which states that all sovereign power belongs to the people of Kenya.

Moreover, Article 255 mandates a referendum for constitutional amendments affecting the presidency. If the public deems the current mechanisms insufficient, a referendum could serve as a legitimate constitutional evolution to uphold accountability. Additionally, Article 104 of the Constitution, which provides for the recall of Members of Parliament, reinforces the principle that elected officials can be removed by the people. While the law does not explicitly provide for presidential recall, legal frameworks evolve to meet the demands of public governance. The judiciary has the opportunity to affirm that presidential power is not above democratic scrutiny.

Legal scholars argue that constitutional democracies must adapt to emerging governance challenges. Precedents in nations such as South Korea (President Park Geun-hye’s impeachment in 2017) and the U.S. (Richard Nixon’s near-impeachment in 1974) highlight that executive accountability requires both legal and public mechanisms for removal.

2. Governance Failures and Economic Mismanagement

Ruto’s tenure has been marked by severe economic downturns, rampant corruption, and unfulfilled campaign promises. Key grievances fueling the impeachment drive include:

a) Rising Cost of Living and Economic Hardship

Kenya’s economy is suffering under the weight of poor fiscal policies, increased taxation, and an unsustainable debt burden. Ruto’s Finance Act 2023 introduced punitive taxes that disproportionately affect the working class while failing to address systemic inefficiencies. High inflation, soaring food prices, and escalating fuel costs have made daily life unbearable for millions. As of 2024, Kenya’s inflation rate has remained above 7%, with fuel prices surging by over 30% since Ruto took office. The president’s refusal to listen to public outcry over these issues has only exacerbated tensions.

Additionally, Kenya’s public debt has surpassed Ksh 10 trillion, with external loans creating immense fiscal strain. Increased taxation to service this debt has led to job losses in key sectors such as manufacturing, retail, and transport, further deepening economic distress. Reports from the Kenya National Bureau of Statistics (KNBS) indicate that unemployment among youth has risen to 15%, marking an alarming trend of economic instability. Historical parallels exist in Argentina and Zimbabwe, where poor fiscal policies led to hyperinflation and economic collapse, reinforcing the need for corrective action before irreversible damage occurs.

b) Corruption and Misuse of Public Funds

Despite campaigning on a platform of economic recovery and anti-corruption, Ruto’s administration has been plagued by financial scandals. Allegations of misappropriation of funds in government projects, questionable procurement deals, and the controversial Hustler Fund mismanagement highlight a pattern of fiscal irresponsibility that erodes public trust. The National Treasury’s audit reports have revealed discrepancies in government spending, with billions unaccounted for in infrastructure projects and social welfare programs. The Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) has raised concerns over the lack of transparency in government procurement, citing increased cases of fraudulent contracts.

Corruption scandals in Kenya have historically led to severe economic setbacks, as seen in the Goldenberg scandal of the 1990s and the Anglo Leasing affair, both of which drained public resources. Lessons from these cases indicate that unchecked financial mismanagement at the executive level must be met with decisive action.

c) Authoritarian Tendencies and Erosion of Democratic Institutions

Ruto’s administration has exhibited troubling tendencies toward centralizing power, undermining the independence of oversight institutions, and suppressing dissent. The alleged intimidation of opposition leaders, unlawful arrests of activists, and restrictions on media freedom signal a shift toward authoritarianism that must be stopped before it solidifies. Legal experts have pointed to past Supreme Court rulings emphasizing that the executive must respect constitutional freedoms, reinforcing the argument for stronger accountability mechanisms.

Historical examples, such as Turkey’s increasing executive control under Erdoğan and Venezuela’s democratic backsliding under Maduro, demonstrate how unchecked executive power can erode institutional independence and suppress opposition.

3. The Political Legitimacy of a Referendum

Critics argue that a referendum to remove a sitting president is unconstitutional. However, legal frameworks evolve based on public necessity. If Parliament has failed to act as a proper check on executive power, the people have a democratic right to institute a direct removal mechanism.

a) Parliamentary Ineffectiveness

With a majority of MPs aligned with the ruling party, parliamentary impeachment remains a formality rather than a serious oversight mechanism. The referendum, therefore, becomes a direct expression of public will and a necessary counterbalance to legislative inefficiency.

b) Global Precedents

Countries like Venezuela and Bolivia have allowed recall referendums as a means for citizens to remove non-performing presidents. While some argue that such mechanisms introduce instability, they also serve as an important check on executive excesses. Kenya can craft a referendum process with clear constitutional safeguards to prevent abuse while maintaining democratic accountability.

4. Public Dissatisfaction and the Rise of Gen-Z Protests

Kenya’s young population has become increasingly vocal in demanding better governance. The rise of Gen-Z-led protests against economic mismanagement, police brutality, and lack of employment opportunities underscores the urgency of change. This generation, which largely determines Kenya’s electoral future, has signaled a clear rejection of Ruto’s policies. If the government ignores this outcry, political alienation could lead to deeper instability.

5. Strengthening Democratic Accountability

A successful referendum to remove Ruto would set a precedent for future leaders—that presidencies are earned through service, not entrenched through manipulation. It would reaffirm Kenya’s position as a maturing democracy where leaders remain accountable to the people beyond the ballot box.

a) Preventing Future Executive Overreach

By allowing direct public participation in leadership removal, Kenya would create a system that deters future presidents from abusing power. The fear of a publicly initiated impeachment process would encourage more responsible governance.

b) Restoring Public Faith in Democratic Processes

The widespread disillusionment with political institutions has led to voter apathy and decreased civic engagement. Allowing citizens to directly determine the fate of an underperforming president would reignite trust in democratic institutions and encourage active political participation.

Conclusion: A Democratic Imperative

The referendum to impeach President Ruto is not just a political move—it is a necessary correction to Kenya’s democratic course. Economic hardship, corruption, and governance failures have rendered his administration incapable of fulfilling its mandate. While legal challenges may arise, the fundamental principle remains: power belongs to the people. If Parliament cannot act as a proper oversight body, the citizens must exercise their sovereign right to demand accountability.

Impeaching Ruto through a referendum is not just about removing a single leader; it is about securing the future of Kenya’s democracy and ensuring that no leader is above the will of the people.