GROUNDS FOR THE IMPEACHMENT OF CECM CAROLYNE KHALAYI MAKALI

IMPEACHMENT GROUNDS FOR Ms. CAROLYNE KHALAYI MAKALI AS MEMBER OF THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

Ground 1: Gross Misconduct and Financial Impropriety (Pending Bills Scandal)

1. 1. Submission of Unverified KSh 4.9 Billion Report: The CECM submitted a report to the County Assembly and the Controller of Budget detailing pending bills worth KSh 4.9 billion without prior verification by her office.
   2. Payment of Fictitious Projects: This negligence facilitated payments for ghost works and fictitious projects, providing legal cover for irregular disbursement of public funds.
   3. Violation of the PFM Act: This conduct violates Section 104(1) of the Public Finance Management Act, which mandates effective and transparent financial management systems.

Ground 2: Diversion of Public Funds and Salary Arrears

1. 1. Diversion of Personnel Emoluments: The CECM shares collective responsibility for the failure to protect the rights of county employees. She concurred with or failed to object to the diversion of KSh 943.6 million May and June, 2024 exchequer funds, intended for salaries, toward development projects, many of which remain unverified or incomplete.
   2. Failure to Remit Statutory Deductions: The CECM failed to ensure the department’s statutory obligations were met, leading to non-remittance of KRA, SHIF, and pension contributions (LAPFUND/CPF).
   3. Violation of Social Security Rights: This has denied staff their constitutional right to social security under Article 43(1)(e) and exposed the department to massive surcharges and penalties.
   4. Misappropriation of Retention Funds: KSh 150 million in contractors’ retention funds, held in trust, were diverted for unauthorized expenditures.

Ground 3: Incompetence and Subversion of the Budget Process

1. 1. Failure to Implement House Resolutions: The CECM has disregarded the Assembly by failing to provide implementation reports on House resolutions within the statutory 60-day window, obstructing oversight under Article 183(1)(c) of the Constitution. For example the ADHOC REPORT ON THE COLLECTION AND UTILIZATION OF AGRICULTURAL CESS IN BUNGOMA COUNTY SINCE SEPTEMBER, 2022 TO MARCH 2025

Ground 4: Administrative Negligence

1. 1. Delay in Operationalizing the Budget: Persistent delays in uploading the Appropriation Act and operationalizing the budget have caused negative departmental balances and service delivery breakdowns.
   2. Contract Variations and Double Payments: Duplicate payments and unnecessary contract variations have inflated the county’s debt profile.

Ground 5: Systematic Falsification of Appropriations and Budgetary Tampering (Pursuant to Sections 129, 131 & 196 of the PFM Act, 2012 and Article 185 of the Constitution)

1. 1. Deliberate Alteration of House-Approved Fiscal Figures: Of 13 vote items passed by the Assembly, 10 were illegally modified before gazettement, undermining legislative authority. Specific Evidence 1– Health and Sanitation Budget:

Recurrent Expenditure: House approved KSh 1,471,330,430; gazetted version reflected KSh 1,426,241,895 — an unauthorized reduction of KSh 45,088,535.

Development Expenditure: House approved KSh 225,933,801; gazetted version reflected KSh 219,143,801 — an unauthorized reduction of KSh 6,790,000.

Specific Evidence 2 – Lands, Urban and Physical Planning, Housing, Bungoma Municipality and Kimilili Municipality

Recurrent Expenditure: House approved KSh 176,096,563; gazetted version reflected KSh 182,124,727 — an unauthorized increase of KSh 6,028,164.

Development Expenditure: House approved KSh 637,907,794; gazetted version reflected KSh 576,855,163 — an unauthorized reduction of KSh 61,052,631.

Specific Evidence 3 – Office of the Governor/Deputy

Recurrent Expenditure: House approved KSh 235,391,804; gazetted version reflected KSh 227,891,804 — an unauthorized reduction of KSh 7,500,000.

Ground 6: Persistent Failure to Submit Finance Bill and Tariffs/Pricing Policy

1. 1. Violation of Statutory Duty over Two Years: Section 133 of the PFM Act requires annual submission of the Finance Bill. The CECM has failed to comply for two consecutive years.
   2. Revenue and Legitimacy Risks: Absence of a Finance Bill denies lawful authority to impose or collect revenue. Failure to present a Tariffs and Pricing Policy perpetuates arbitrary levies.
   3. iii. Obstruction of Oversight: This sustained failure undermines transparency and obstructs the Assembly’s fiscal oversight mandate under Article 185.
   4. Failure to implement Section 120 of the County Government Act

Ground 7: Serious Violation of the Law Regarding House Resolutions  (Breach of Article 183(1)(c) of the Constitution and Section 30(2)(l) of the County Governments Act)

1. 1. Failure to Report on Implementation: The CECM has failed to provide the Assembly, within 60 days, the implementation status of House resolutions and legislations.
   2. Obstruction of Oversight: This refusal paralyzes the Assembly’s oversight mandate under Article 185(3) and conceals inefficiencies from public scrutiny.

Ground 8: Gross incompetence and Negligence of duty

The then-CECM for Health and Sanitation, Ms. Carolyne Makali Khalayi, demonstrated gross incompetence and total abdication of her constitutional and statutory duties in the following manner:

1. 1. Abdication of Departmental Responsibility: The CECM willfully allowed and or consented to the Department of Finance and Economic Planning taking over the core technical functions of her department, specifically the procurement of the Hospital Management System (HMS), thereby failing to protect the autonomy and technical integrity of the Health Department.
   2. Negligent Oversight of Technical Specifications: As the head of the user department, the CECM failed to ensure that the system being procured met the clinical and administrative requirements of the county hospitals, leading to the acquisition of a system that was non-functional upon deployment.
   3. iii. Failure to Object to Irregular Procurement: The CECM sat by and watched as the Finance Department oversaw the advertising, evaluation, and awarding of a KSh 65 Million contract for a specialized medical health system, a process she was legally mandated to lead and safeguard under the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act.
   4. Condoning Fruitless Expenditure: By failing to raise a professional objection to the payment of KSh 32.5 Million to Jumbo Soft Technologies for a failed system, the CECM was complicit in the loss of public funds.
   5. Dereliction of Duty toward Health Facilities: The CECM’s failure to ensure a working management system directly undermined the delivery of health services to the people of Bungoma, as the lack of a functional system compromised patient records, revenue collection, and facility management.
   6. Incompetence in Project Leadership: The CECM failed to assert her authority to ensure that the Project Implementation Team was technically competent and health-oriented, rather than a team appointed by the Finance Department with no clinical expertise.

GROUND 9: Failure to allocate funds towards settlement of genuine bills

THAT, despite the accumulation of massive liabilities, the CECM failed to prioritize the settlement of genuine pending bills, choosing instead to initiate new projects Instead of settling outstanding arrears for completed works. By failing to allocate funds to settle the department’s legitimate debts, the CECM has caused local contractors to suffer financial distress and exposed the County to litigations and high-interest penalties.

GROUND 10: Gross negligence in the verification and reporting of Pending Bills

The CECM failed to ensure that the pending bills accumulated by the Department were verifiable, accurate, and reliable.

1. 1. The CECM presided over the compilation of a KSh 4.9 Billion pending bills report that was characterized as a “moving target.” This report lacked a fixed audit trail and was consistently altered, making it impossible to achieve a definitive and reliable figure for budgeting purposes.
   2. The CECM negligently forwarded these inaccurate and unverified figures to the County Treasury, thereby misrepresenting the County’s financial position.
   3. The CECM allowed these discrepancies to persist until the County Assembly raised an alarm, proving that the internal controls and verification mechanisms under her leadership had completely collapsed.