Former Nairobi Governor Mike Sonko has defended some of the decisions that marked his time in office, telling the court that he refused to approve a county budget because he feared being held personally liable for spending that lacked a clear legal basis.
Sonko said he sought advice from the county attorney and his lawyers before declining to sign the budget, particularly over the financing of functions transferred from the national government to Nairobi County.
He told the court that the disputed functions included transport and infrastructure, health, education and housing.
According to Sonko, his lawyers warned that there was no clear legal framework permitting the county to finance the transferred functions.
“I was consulting my lawyers. They told me that there was no legal framework to allow the funding of the transferred functions,” he said.
Sonko said he later discussed his position with then-President Uhuru Kenyatta, explaining the reasons behind his refusal to sign the budget.
He linked the disagreement to his eventual impeachment, maintaining that the budget dispute was among the issues that contributed to his removal as governor.
The former governor also challenged the circumstances surrounding his impeachment, telling the court that he considered the process politically motivated and contrary to the law.
He claimed that about 76 MCAs supported him during the proceedings and said the matter was subsequently taken to the Senate.
Sonko further alleged that some senators had publicly claimed they were offered bribes to support his removal, although those allegations were part of his account of the impeachment proceedings.
After his removal, he said, he continued to challenge the decision through the courts.
The court also heard Sonko’s explanation of his opposition to demolitions and some development projects in Nairobi.
While being questioned about interests he associated with members of the former first family, Sonko mentioned Home Choice Holdings Limited and Northlands.
He said his objections to some demolitions were based on what he considered inadequate consultation with residents who stood to be affected.
Sonko maintained that his decisions were guided by his interpretation of the law and his responsibility to the people of Nairobi.
His testimony forms part of his defence in the corruption case after the Nairobi court found that the prosecution had established a case sufficient to require him to enter his defence.
