Blow to DP after Kingi dismisses all objections

Senate Speaker Amason Mingi during impeachment trial against Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua on October 16, 2024.  [Elvis Ogina, Standard]

It has been blow after blow for Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua since the Motion was filed to impeach him.

From the courts to the National Assembly and now the Senate, Gachagua has not registered a win.

On Wednesday, Senate Speaker Amason Kingi dismissed all the prayers that Gachagua’s counsel sought.

One of the issues raised was the admission of an affidavit by Peterson Njomo, who has detailed how he acted as the DP’s proxy in acquiring Olive Gardens Hotel, initially said to have been owned by Gachagua’s late brother, Nderitu Gachagua.

“The question and the test is, shall we suffer prejudice? Shall our rights be deemed to have been held? That is the non-derogable right to fair hearing. This is not a witness who was before the National Assembly. Where is the source of the information in the documents submitted to this House by the Speaker of the National Assembly?”said lawyer Ndegwa Njiru.

Njiru also opposed a document of the National Assembly on responses from various government agencies, saying it was not part of the bundle served on the DP.

But the National Assembly insisted that the material was relevant.

“The question we should be asking is whether there is any new evidence that has been adduced by the National Assembly. Our answer is an emphatic No,” said lawyer Eric Gumbo.

In his ruling, Kingi said the parties were instructed when sending responses to indicate any other evidence to be relied on.

“What is not allowed is to introduce new allegations or to introduce any evidence  that is extraneous to the allegations made in the impeachment motion.”

Another issue that rattled the DP was the entry of Siaya Governor James Orengo as the lead counsel for the National Assembly.

Gachagua argued that it would be prejudicial “on the basis that Orengo is a full time State Officer as per Article 260 of the Constitution as read together with Article 26 (2) on Leadership and Integrity Act, which bars a full time State officer to engage in other meaningful employment.”

But Gumbo said Article 77 of the Constitution is the primary law that speaks to restrictions on activities of State Officers.

“Article 77 (1) reads ‘A full time State officer shall not participate in another gainful employment’,” he said.

“In any case, what evidence has been tendered before this House to speak to that fact?”

Kingi agreed, terming it as surprising that the counsel attempted to shift the onus of proving to the National Assembly.

Similarly, Gachagua’s lawyer Paul Muite raised issue on the summonses to ask individuals from the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission to give evidence.

“Nothing was referred to the anti-corruption commission or any other investigative agencies including money laundering. We strongly object and ask that the record of this House reflects that if this is permitted for National Assembly to call witnesses at this stage without first furnishing us with their witness statement and affidavits, the case of DP will be irredeemably prejudiced,” he said.