Former Nairobi Governor, Mike Mbuvi Sonko, has issued a statement following the court decision allowing the swearing in of Anne Kananu as the substantive governor of the city county.
In a statement Monday, November 8, the ousted Governor stated that he had conceded defeat after the Supreme Court threw out his petition seeking to block deputy governor Ann Kananu from being sworn in.
Sonko lost his gubernatorial seat in 2020 after the Senate voted in favour of an impeachment motion passed by the Nairobi County Assembly against him.
In his statement, the former Governor expressed gratitude to Nairobi residents for giving him an opportunity to serve them in the capacity of Governor since 2017.
"I concede defeat by accepting the Supreme Court's verdict this (Monday) afternoon. God's timing is the best and a time will come when he will give me another chance to serve Kenyans in any capacity.
"I'm forever grateful for the opportunity I had working for you, I will continue doing so. For now we leave everything to God. We live to for another day. However, aluta continua as life must go on," wrote Sonko.
Sonko had filed an appeal in the Apex Court seeking to stop his deputy from taking over operations at City Hall, with the court temporarily halting the swearing in that was slated for October 26, 2021.
The Supreme Court, while making its determination, cited the absence of the Court of Appeal judgment as one of the reasons for dropping the case.
The court argued that the petition by the former Governor did not meet the minimum threshold stipulated by the Constitution of Kenya 2010.
“The court, we conclude lacks jurisdiction to entertain the application,” read a section of the ruling.
On October 22, 2021, the Court of Appeal had given green light for the swearing-in of Kananu as the Governor.
A three-Judge bench (Justices Jamila Mohamed, Wanjiru Karanja, and Jessie Lessit) made the ruling on the basis that Sonko had stayed out of office for more than 10 months, therefore, had ceased to become the holder of the office.
“We find that the issue of the swearing-in of the 11th respondent was not raised in the High Court and the impugned judgment did not address or determine that issue,” read the judgment.
