Governor Waititu is right in resuming his duties. The power of people holding elected offices is derived directly from the people. That is why there are established mechanisms for removing them from office.

In canons of statutory constructions, there is the golden rule. A judicial official should not give meaning to a provision of a statute that results into an obnoxious results.

Assume a governor without a deputy, like Sonko, or both governor and their deputy are charged, would the county remain without leadership? The speaker of the assembly cannot assume because there is neither vacancy nor inability to act.

By asking the governor not to attend to his duties, it amounts to technically removing him from office through back door. If a governor can be removed from office by a resident magistrate, it makes a complete mockery of democracy.

Where a governor is charged, it forms a ground of removal from office, the process that is outlined.

The difference between the president and a governor, is the president is given a constitutional immunity from any prosecutions.

This doesn’t mean presidents don’t commit acts of thievery or other malfeasance. But is is logical to ring fence them from disruptions of prosecutions.

The court order barring Waititu from discharging his duties is not constitutionally grounded. Waitutu’s power is derived directly from the people of Kiambu, and only the People of Kiambu, through their MCA’s, can initiate a process of removing from office.

The enthusiastic resident magistrates should exercise some restrains, and not issue court orders, whose header is an invitation to dishonor them.

An alarming precedent. Asking the governor to keep away from office is asking him to abdicate his constitutional duties and obligations to serve his electorates.