Nairobi’s Governor Johnson Sakaja is caught in the cross-winds of finance, politics, and public anger. On paper, the numbers look fatal: overwhelming assembly signatures, long lists of alleged malfeasance, and service-delivery failures across the city. In practice, however, he survives—because impeachment in Nairobi is decided less by facts than by the political marketplace. Patronage, coalition bargains, and elite self-interest have combined to suspend a seemingly inevitable ouster. What follows is an anatomy of his predicament—and of the political logic that makes removal improbable for now.
The Case Against Him: Overwhelming Signatures, Deep Service Failures
By early September, 87 MCAs—about 71% of Nairobi’s 123-member assembly—had signed onto an impeachment bid, more than double the 42 signatures required to table a motion (one-third of the house). It was the first time in this term that ODM and UDA ward reps aligned on a single punitive action against the governor. On raw arithmetic alone, Sakaja looked finished.
The charge sheet—political, administrative, and fiduciary—was sprawling. Financial questions ranged from alleged ghost supplier payouts and end-of-year rush payments to proxy-linked companies to a flagged KSh 60 million theft under probe by anti-graft bodies. On the social side, MCAs cited the non-disbursement of Ward Development Funds, a faltering bursary programme, a stubborn water crisis, uncollected garbage, and neglected county hospitals. Governance complaints rounded it out: sidelined ward reps, ignored assembly resolutions, and a pattern of unresponsiveness from the governor’s office. In public opinion polling earlier in the year, Nairobians ranked their governor among the bottom tier countrywide, reinforcing the political momentum for a putsch.
On substance, then, the pressure was no mirage. The impeachment enterprise had signatures, stories, and simmering public discontent. In a rules-based system, these would be decisive. But Nairobi operates within a political economy where rules set the stage—and power writes the script.
The Firewall: Raila, Ruto, and a Bipartisan Stay of Execution
Sakaja’s most consequential reprieve came not from rebutting the accusations but from elite intervention. Raila Odinga convened ODM MCAs at Jaramogi Oginga Odinga Foundation offices and secured a 30-day suspension of the impeachment push, with a warning that defiance could attract party discipline and even imperil 2027 tickets. In parallel, President William Ruto hosted UDA MCAs at State House and engineered a 60-day grace period for the governor to address grievances. Plans for a joint follow-up were floated, making clear this was now a bipartisan management exercise, not a county revolt.
Strip the choreography to its logic: ODM+UDA together command about 104 MCAs—roughly 85% of the house. If the two-party leaderships maintain a “hold-fire” stance, the impeachment train can be shunted to a siding, no matter how loaded the freight. Even with 87 signatures gathered at peak anger, the same signatories can be whipped, cajoled, or compensated back into inertia when principals intervene. In other words, Sakaja’s survival is a political decision taken above the assembly, then enforced within it.
Here lies the essential explanation for “why he cannot be impeached” right now: not because the case is weak, but because the coalition calculus deems it inconvenient. The governor is more useful in office than out, at least for the period covered by the grace windows. That is how Nairobi’s power works.
The Money Motive: City Revenue, Rents, and the Market for Protection
Behind the choreography is a material engine: Nairobi’s revenue—“billions” collected from rates, permits, levies, parking, markets, clinics, and contracts—represents both political oxygen and fiscal rent. Any governor who sits on that flow becomes a node through which allies, brokers, and contractors expect liquidity. This is why, even as allegations swirl, shielding can prevail: patrons across factions prefer a manageable incumbent to the uncertainties (and rival patronage networks) that a successful impeachment and by-election would unleash.
It is widely alleged—and should be treated as unverified—that the protective umbrella exists because “everyone eats”: that the incumbent must be sharing proceeds or access with power brokers across ODM and UDA, keeping the peace by keeping the pipeline open. Similarly, there are claims (again unverified) that some ward reps’ “resolve” softened after small cash tokens—figures like KSh 10,000—are circulated as facilitation. In Kenya’s political economy, such whispers are routine, even when hard evidence rarely surfaces. The point is not the specific amounts but the logic: where rents are large and centralized, patronage becomes the principal instrument of stability.
For the ordinary Nairobi resident, this logic translates into a paradox. The same revenue base that should finance water, waste, roads, clinics, bursaries, and ward projects becomes the currency of political détente. The assembly’s ire is real; the city’s needs are urgent. But the settlement—brokered at party centres—redirects the crisis away from accountability and toward containment, pending cosmetic course-corrections by the executive.
The Math, the Law—and the Road Ahead
Could Sakaja be impeached if party umbrellas fold? On the numbers, yes. The impeachment threshold to initiate proceedings is 42 signatures; the pro-impeachment bloc already demonstrated 87, a formidable supermajority. With ODM and UDA commanding around 104 seats combined, a coordinated turn against the governor would carry the assembly vote with ease. His current safety is thus contingent, not absolute—anchored in the 30–60 day political stand-down negotiated by coalition principals. If service delivery does not improve and political bargains fray, the math reasserts itself.
In the meantime, the conditions for survival are neither mysterious nor rhetorical. MCAs have tabled a concrete checklist: release Ward Development Funds, clear bursaries, fix front-line services (water, waste, local roads), respond to assembly resolutions, and cooperate on corruption probes. Even modest delivery would arm party leadership with enough talking points to justify extending the reprieve. Failure would make renewed signatures politically costless.
The current stasis is explained by three interlocking forces: a bipartisan leash, where tactical convergence between Raila and Ruto shifts the assembly’s center of gravity upward and subordinates county drama to national coalition management; rent preservation, since a sitting governor serves as a hub for revenue allocation and contracts and removal would redistribute those rents away from today’s beneficiaries; and transactional relief, whereby promises, projects, or inducements make the price of short-term peace cheaper than the upheaval of regime change—particularly with elections distant enough to allow narratives to be reset.
None of this absolves the accused of the litany of failures MCAs documented; it simply explains why the institutional route to accountability is throttled at the point where politics meets money. Nairobi’s reality is that impeachment is a political option, not a legal inevitability—and political options are exercised only when the coalition math and the rent flows align.
Survival by Settlement, Not by Service
Sakaja’s position is weaker than his title suggests and stronger than his critics hoped. Weaker, because an overwhelming cross-party bloc has already demonstrated its ability to gather signatures and build a public case to unseat him. Stronger, because the bipartisan settlement—a 30-day ODM pause layered over a 60-day UDA grace—transforms impeachment from a procedural march into a negotiated horizon. In that window, the governor’s best defence is not exoneration but transaction: release long-stalled funds, show visible fixes, and keep the coalition wholesalers engaged.
For Nairobians, the upshot is sobering. Service delivery remains the bargaining chip; accountability remains contingent on elite cohesion; and the city’s considerable revenue continues to double as both public resource and private incentive. If the governor ultimately “cannot be impeached” today, it is not because the case is thin—it is because the political price of removing him is, for now, higher than the political price of keeping him. That is the calculus of a city where numbers build the case but patronage decides it.
Okoth Osewe
About the Author
