GROUNDS FOR REMOVAL OF EDWARD ORINGE WASWA FROM OFFICE OF BUNGOMA COUNTY ATTORNEY

GROUNDS FOR REMOVAL OF EDWARD ORINGE WASWA FROM OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY

Ground 1: Fraudulent Misrepresentation on Official Vetting Documents

The County Attorney, Edward Oringe Waswa, willfully provided false and misleading information to the Committee on Appointment during his vetting process by denying any past criminal charges. This act constitutes a grave breach of the leadership and integrity standards required of the County’s Chief Legal Advisor.

(a) False Information during Vetting: The County Attorney willfully provided false and misleading information to the Committee on Appointment by denying any past criminal charges. When asked under oath (Question 28) if he had been charged in court within the last three years, he responded “None”.

(b) Existence of Criminal Charges: Contrary to his declaration, official records indicate multiple criminal proceedings within the stated three-year period:

1. 1. Malicious Damage to Property: Charged on June 27, 2023, under Section 339(1) of the Penal Code (Police Case No. 857/208/2023) for willfully damaging a perimeter wall valued at KSh 650,000.
   2. Abducting with Intent to Confine: Charged under Section 259 of the Penal Code for the alleged abduction and wrongful confinement of Vipul Ratilal Gosar Ramji Dodhia on May 5, 2023.
   3. Assault Causing Actual Bodily Harm: Charged on June 19, 2023, under Section 251 of the Penal Code (Police Case No. 857/207/2023) for the assault of Christopher Ren Makwato.

(c) Concealment of Court Outcomes: Despite court records indicating he was “Out on F/Bond” and that matters were processed through the Chief Magistrate’s Court in Kitale, the Attorney failed to disclose these statuses as required by the vetting form.

(d) Improper Acquisition of Office: By knowingly misrepresenting facts, the officer undermined the credibility of the vetting process and secured appointment through deception, violating Section 46 of the Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Act.

Ground 2: Serious Violation of the Constitution and Statutory Law

1. Breach of Mandatory Reporting Obligations

i) The County Attorney has willfully disregarded Section 28 of the Office of the County Attorney Act, which mandates submission of an Annual Report to the Governor and subsequent tabling before the County Assembly.

ii) This failure conceals the financial statements and legal activities of the Office from the oversight of the Assembly, undermining transparency and accountability.

Ground 3: Gross Incompetence and Lack of Professional Judgment

1. 1. Professional Negligence and Erroneous Legal Advising

i) The County Attorney has consistently failed to provide sound legal counsel, citing incorrect provisions and offering misleading guidance to departments.

ii) This incompetence exposes the County to avoidable litigation, financial loss, and procedural paralysis.

2. Illegal Advisory on Referral of the CFSP (2026)

i) Violation: The Attorney wrongly advised that the Governor could ―refer back‖ the County Fiscal Strategy Paper (CFSP), 2026, citing Section 24 of the County Governments Act.

ii) Legal Reality: Section 24 applies strictly to Bills. The CFSP is governed by Section 117 of the PFM Act and Regulations 26–28. Once adopted by the Assembly, the CFSP is binding and does not require gubernatorial assent.

iii). By inventing a ―referral power‖ non-existent in law, the Attorney undermined the finality of Assembly resolutions.

1. 3. Misapplication of the “1% Deviation Rule”

i) Violation: The Attorney wrongly cited Section 131(2) of the PFM Act to limit the Assembly’s oversight authority during the CFSP stage.

ii) Legal Reality: Section 131(2) and Regulation 37(1) apply exclusively to Budget Estimates, not the CFSP. There is no 1% cap at the CFSP stage.

iii). Impact: This misinterpretation was a deliberate attempt to mislead the Executive and the public, stripping the Assembly of its constitutional power to set fiscal ceilings and align the budget with the CIDP.

1. 4. Constitutional Illiteracy and Breach of Separation of Powers

i) The Attorney has demonstrated a lack of understanding of the constitutional roles of the Executive versus the Assembly, thereby paralyzing the principle of checks and balances under Chapter 11 of the Constitution.

5. Administrative Inability

i) Persistent failure to manage administrative requirements of the office, including preparation of mandatory Annual Reports under Section 28 and verification of pending bills, demonstrates lack of competence required of the Chief Legal Advisor.

Ground 4: Subversion of the Constitutional Principle of Separation of Powers

1. 1. Obstruction of Legislative Oversight

i) By advising the Executive to “reject” a CFSP adopted by the Assembly without legal basis under Regulation 28 (which applies only to significant macroeconomic changes), the Attorney engineered a constitutional crisis between the two arms of government.

2. Bad Faith Advisory

i). The Attorney failed to differentiate between the Executive’s duty to enforce fiscal responsibility under Section 107 of the PFMA and the Assembly’s mandate to adopt fiscal strategy.

Ground 5: Serious Violation of the Law Regarding House Resolutions

1. 1. Failure to Report on Implementation

a) The County Attorney has failed to provide the County Assembly, within the mandatory or reasonable period of sixty (60) days, the implementation status of House resolutions and legislations pertaining to their office.

b) This omission denies the Assembly its constitutional right to timely information and obstructs accountability.

2. Obstruction of Oversight

a) The persistent refusal to account for the execution of House directives has effectively paralyzed the Assembly’s oversight mandate under Article 185(3) of the Constitution.

b) By concealing inefficiencies within the Office of the County Attorney from public scrutiny, the Attorney has eroded transparency and weakened the Assembly’s role as the people’s watchdog.

Ground 6: Incompetence in Fiscal Stewardship (Salary & Statutory Debts)

i) Diversion of Personnel Emoluments: The County Attorney 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.

ii) Failure to Remit Statutory Deductions: The County Attorney failed to ensure the department’s statutory obligations were met, leading to non-remittance of KRA, SHIF, and pension contributions (LAPFUND/CPF).

iii). 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.

GROUND 7: Failure to allocate funds towards settlement of genuine bills

THAT, despite the accumulation of massive liabilities, the County Attorney 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 County Attorney has caused local contractors to suffer financial distress and exposed the County to litigations and high-interest penalties.

GROUND 8: Gross negligence in the verification and reporting of Pending Bills

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

i). The County Attorney 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.

ii). The County Attorney negligently forwarded these inaccurate and unverified figures to the County Treasury, thereby misrepresenting the County’s financial position.

iii. The County Attorney allowed these discrepancies to persist until the County Assembly raised an alarm, proving that the internal controls and verification mechanisms under his leadership had completely collapsed.