Lawyer Steve Ogolla Explains Threshold Ruto Must Meet to Prove Bribery Claims Against MPs
- Legal expert Steve Ogolla analysed President William Ruto’s bribery allegations, explaining the need for credible evidence before any further investigative
- Another governance lawyer outlined stringent legal thresholds required for impeachment, emphasising the near impossibility of achieving them in current politics
- The lawyers interpreted the fears of parliament’s dissolution resurfacing, clarifying why it is impossible to dissolve the House
Search option is now available at TUKO! Feel free to search the content on topics/people you enjoy reading about in the top right corner ;)
Nancy Odindo, a TUKO.co.ke journalist, has over four years of experience covering Kenyan politics, news, and features for digital and print media.
President William Ruto’s recent claims of bribery within parliament have continued to dominate national discourse, with legal experts weighing in on their implications and the constitutional questions they raise.
Source: Facebook
Ruto alleged that he had received information pointing to widespread corruption in both Houses of parliament, warning that implicated lawmakers risk arrest and prosecution.
The remarks, however, have triggered a mix of reactions, with critics questioning the weight of the allegations and the legal avenues available for action.
Search option is now available at TUKO! Feel free to search the content on topics/people you enjoy reading about in the top right corner ;)
Why Ruto's bribery claims cannot lead to arrest
City lawyer Steve Ogolla, speaking exclusively to TUKO.co.ke, argued that the president’s statement amounted to political posturing rather than a legally enforceable claim.
“The claims are political, not legal. The allegations are not supported by evidence,” Ogolla explained. “Until the president provides evidence that show MPs or senators demanding and receiving bribes, nothing can be acted upon. Intelligence alone cannot be the basis for charges in court.”
Ogolla noted that the president himself had admitted to receiving 'raw intelligence,' which, though useful for reorganising state security systems, cannot be admitted as evidence in court.
“He must provide tangible proof such as CCTV footage or transactional evidence showing MPs receiving bribes,” Ogolla added. “Even if money was exchanged, it would still be difficult to prove the link between the funds and parliamentary decisions, such as passing a bill or saving a governor.”
Despite this, Ogolla acknowledged the symbolic impact of Ruto’s allegations, suggesting that his public admission might serve to deter corrupt practices in parliament.
“Even if no arrests are made, the president’s declaration was enough to puncture corruption,” he said. “The mere statement will likely make MPs or senators cautious in demanding bribes going forward.”
Source: Facebook
Can MPs impeach William Ruto?
While there have been threats of a possible impeachment motion, lawyer and governance consultant Philip Mwangale, while speaking exclusively to TUKO.co.ke, stressed that the constitutional threshold for removing a sitting president is high and almost impossible to achieve in Kenya’s current political climate.
“Impeachment of the president is a politico-legal process,” Mwangale explained. “No MP today can muster a third of the National Assembly to support such a motion.”
According to Article 145 of the Constitution, impeachment can only proceed if the president is proven to have grossly violated the Constitution, committed a crime under national or international law, or engaged in gross misconduct.
“These are extremely difficult charges to prove, especially with the president enjoying a strong majority,” Mwangale added. “The cries in parliament are more about flexing political muscle than pursuing a legal process. There is no bite in the bark.”
Source: Facebook
Is it possible for William Ruto to dissolve parliament?
The debate also revived public fears of whether Ruto could dissolve parliament, a scenario reminiscent of 2020 when then-chief justice David Maraga advised retired president Uhuru Kenyatta to dissolve the House for failing to pass the two-thirds gender rule.
Clarifying the constitutional framework, Mwangale noted that Article 261(7) mandates the chief justice to advise the president to dissolve parliament if it fails to enact required legislation after a court order.
“Ruto would need a fresh advisory from the chief justice to dissolve Parliament. He could theoretically rely on Maraga’s 2020 advisory, but that would invite court challenges and deepen tensions with lawmakers," Mwangale explained.
Ogolla concurred, stressing that parliament’s five-year term is constitutionally protected.
Is IEBC involved in parliament dissolution?
Meanwhile, the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) dismissed a document circulating on social media, claiming to be a press release on the dissolution of parliament, as fake and misleading.
The commission warned the public to disregard the document entirely, emphasising that it does not originate from the IEBC.
IEBC said it will investigate the source of the false document and take legal action against those responsible.
The commission urged the public to verify information through official IEBC channels, including social media, email, phone, or its offices, reaffirming its commitment to credible and transparent elections.
Source: TUKO.co.ke
