IMPEACHMENT GROUNDS FOR CECM WEKESA DOUGLAS SASITA

SPECIAL MOTION–REMOVAL OF WEKESA DOUGLAS SASITA FROM OFFICE OF MEMBER OF THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

 Ground 1: Gross Misconduct and Misleading the House

1. Violation of Article 10 of the Constitution: The CECM breached national values of integrity and transparency by providing a technical progress report that misrepresents facts on the ground. In July 2025, the CECM reported through the Sectoral Committee on Lands, Urban, Physical Planning and Housing that foundation works were 70% complete and casting was at 95%, yet as of April 2026, the project remains at the foundation stage.
2. The CECM’s continued assurance that the project was “on track” misled the Assembly and concealed the fact that no work has proceeded since the Committee’s fact-finding mission on July 28, 2025.

Ground 2: Professional negligence and approval of non-viable designs for the County Executive Administration Block

1. Breach of Article 232 of the Constitution: The CECM failed to maintain high professional ethics by approving and signing off on questionable structural designs as the County Architect.
2. Endangering Occupational Safety: Following alarms raised by National Government Engineer from Public Works, it was determined the design was not physically viable and posed a threat to occupational safety, necessitating a complete re-design.
3. Despite the Governor’s cabinet reshuffle in 22, August 2025 intended to address departmental failures, and the subsequent withdrawal of national supervision, the CECM failed to ensure the County Resident Engineer resumed works, leading to total stagnation.

Ground 3: Financial Negligence & Failure to Secure Public Funds

There is a critical failure in the CECM’s duty to protect county resources through the management of bank guarantees where;

1. Expired Securities: The Advance Payment Guarantee for the project expired on March 18, 2025. Despite this, as of October 17, 2025, the guarantee had still not been renewed.
2. Exposure of Public Funds: The County has already paid out Ksh. 95,149,651.46 to Centerline Logistics Limited. By allowing the guarantee to remain expired for over seven months, the CECM left Ksh. 95,149,651.46 million of taxpayer money completely unsecured and unrecoverable in the event of contractor default or termination. The department’s “efforts” were limited to writing reminders to the contractor in July and September 2025, rather than taking decisive legal or contractual action to suspend the works or invoke penalties earlier.

Ground 4: Incompetence and Fiscal Irresponsibility

1. The CECM presided over a project that is now mathematically impossible to complete within the original contract timelines. With 29 months (80%) of the contract elapsed since November 2, 2023 , the project is only 10% complete. To finish the remaining 90% by November 2, 2026, the contractor would require a 900% increase in work pace—a logistical impossibility. By failing to issue a “Notice to Cure” or invoke the bank guarantee after the project stalled, the CECM has jeopardized the Ksh. 97,476,000 advance payment made to Centerline Logistics Limited.

GROUND 5: Gross violation of the Constitution and Statutory Law

While serving as a CECM for Lands Urban Planning, Physical, Housing and Municipalities

1. Failure to Operationalize Municipalities: The CECM grossly violated statutory provisions by failing to facilitate the mandatory transfer of functions, assets, and resources to Bungoma and Kimilili Municipalities.
2. Breach of the Urban Areas and Cities Act: By refusing to transfer critical functions such as Building Plan Approval, Revenue Collection, and Refuse Management since October 2021, the CECM acted in direct contravention of the legal framework governing devolved urban units.
3. Illegal Retention of Power: The CECM’s failure to appoint a substantive Municipal Manager through a competitive process—opting instead for prolonged “acting” appointments—violates Section 28 of the Urban Areas and Cities Act and undermines the statutory intent of professional municipal management.
4. Subversion of Devolution: These actions constitute a systemic attempt to frustrate the operationalization of municipal governance, thereby violating the constitutional principles of decentralization and democratic governance under Article 175.

GROUND 6: Abuse of Office and improper allocation of resources

1. Centralization of Functions: The CECM abused his office by unlawfully retaining control over functions and funds legally earmarked for the Municipalities, thereby denying them their lawful autonomy.
2. Financial Usurpation: The CECM presided over the irregular expenditure of Kshs. 39,647,586 for Kimilili and Kshs. 79,470,574 for Bungoma by the County Executive, bypassing the Municipal Boards and conferring improper advantage to the parent department.
3. Administrative Sabotage: The use of frequent, arbitrary transfers of acting managers served as a tool of intimidation, eroding institutional memory and stalling long-term projects essential for urban development.

Ground 7: Abuse of Procurement and Tendering Processes

1. Failure to Adhere to Procurement Plans: The CECM allowed the department to bypass approved procurement plans, leading to ad-hoc, irregular spending and the emergency ―procurement‖ of goods that were never delivered.
2. Unjustified Procurement Delays: The CECM presided over intentional and unjustified delays in tendering processes, often used to create ―artificial emergencies‖ to justify direct procurement or variations.

Ground 8: Serious Violation of the Law Regarding House Resolutions

1. Failure to Report on Implementation: The CECM has failed to provide the Assembly, within sixty (60) days, the implementation status of House resolutions and legislations pertaining to department. For example the implementation of THE BUNGOMA COUNTY WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ACT, 2023, REPORT ON TRADE LOAN STATUS.
2. Obstruction of Oversight: This persistent refusal to account for the execution of House directives has paralyzed the Assembly’s oversight mandate under Article 185(3) of the Constitution and concealed departmental inefficiencies from public scrutiny.

Ground 9: Gross violation of the constitution and the Environmental Management and Coordination Act (EMCA)

While serving as a CECM for Lands Urban Planning, Physical, Housing and Municipalities

1. The CECM oversaw the demolition of the old Kanduyi Market and the subsequent burial of asbestos-containing waste on-site at a depth of 15 meters without a NEMA-licensed handler. This constitutes a Breach of Section 89 of the Environmental Management and Coordination Act (EMCA) and the Waste Management Regulations (2006), which categorize asbestos as hazardous waste (Item 136) requiring strict, licensed disposal protocols.
2. The disposal was carried out despite the absence of an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) project report and without the mandatory oversight of experts from the National Environmental Management Authority. This is a Gross Violation of Section 58 of EMCA, which mandates an EIA for projects likely to have a significant impact on the environment, and Section 102 of the County Governments Act, which requires efficiency and professional standards in service delivery.
3. iii. The CECM failed to decommission the burial site, fence it with a lockable chain-link fence, or post warning notices, thereby leaving the hazardous site open to the public. This violates the Precautionary Principle under the Rio Declaration (to which Kenya is a signatory), which dictates that lack of
4. scientific certainty shall not justify postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation.
5. The improper handling of these materials exposed the public to airborne fibers known to cause lung cancer, mesothelioma, and other terminal illnesses. This is a Gross Violation of Article 42 of the Constitution of Kenya, which guarantees every person the right to a clean and healthy environment, a right the court explicitly found to be under threat in this case.
6. The CECM allowed construction to proceed and buildings to be erected over the buried hazardous waste, despite knowing the disposal was not NEMA-compliant. The court’s order to “remove all hazardous asbestos waste from its current location” now necessitates the destruction or interference with new infrastructure to reach the waste buried 15 meters deep.
7. This violates the Principles of Public Finance under Article 201(d) of the Constitution, which requires that public money be used in a prudent and responsible way. The decision to build over illegally buried toxins represents a gross failure of professional judgment and fiduciary duty.
8. In Case E003 of 2025, the court found the 1st Respondent’s (County Government) argument that the application was “overtaken by events” because the site was already clear to be unpersuasive. By ordering a mandatory injunction for removal, the court has effectively penalized the County for the CECM’s “short-cut” disposal methods. The residents of Bungoma will now incur the costs.

GROUND 10: 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 11: 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. 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 his leadership had completely collapsed.