Sonko testifies in court budget refusal was at the heart of his fight with state

Former Nairobi Governor Mike Mbuvi Sonko testified in court that his refusal to sign the county budget was the core issue in his conflict with the national government, leading to his impeachment. Sonko explained that he only declined to approve the budget after consulting with his county attorney and lawyers, who informed him that there was no clear legal framework for funding certain functions transferred to the county by the national government.

These functions included transport, infrastructure, health, education, and housing. Sonko clarified that signing the budget without a proper legal framework would have placed him at risk of personal liability in the future. He recounted his discussions with then-President Uhuru Kenyatta, explaining his refusal to sign the budget.

Sonko asserted that the disagreement over the budget was one of the primary factors that led to his removal from office. He defended himself against impeachment allegations, claiming they were politically motivated and unlawful. Sonko pointed out that during the televised impeachment proceedings, approximately 76 Members of the County Assembly (MCAs) stood by his side, asserting that the majority did not initially back his removal.

The case proceeded to the Senate, where Sonko alleged that some senators had received bribes to vote for his impeachment, claiming these payments were intended to influence senators to vote for his removal. After his removal, Sonko continued to challenge the decision through the courts and expressed opposition to the demolition of structures and various development projects in Nairobi, linking these disputes to investments associated with the former first family.

He named specific companies, such as Home Choice Holdings Limited and Northlands, and explained his opposition to these developments, which he believed were connected to the interests of the former first family. Sonko defended his popularity among Nairobi residents, stating that his strong support among voters influenced his stance against actions that he believed would impact the electorate who had elected him.

He emphasized that some demolitions were carried out without sufficient consultation, emphasizing the importance of engaging residents before such actions were taken, particularly as these decisions affected residents who had supported him during the election. Sonko maintained that his decisions were based on his interpretation of the law and his duty to protect the interests of the Nairobi residents.