Governor Mwangaza fights for delay of ouster, hits out at Kingi

Meru Governor Kawira Mwangaza mounted a spirited defence to remain in office pending the hearing and determination of her impeachment case.

Through her lawyers, Mwangaza urged High Court to extend the orders suspending her ouster.

She argued that the impeachment process at the county assembly and the Senate was illegal and unconstitutional because the legislators disregarded a court order.

"The impeachment proceedings were in defiance of a court order that prohibited the County Assembly of Meru and the Senate from proceeding with the impeachment of the Governor," his lawyer, Elias Mutuma, argued.

.

Keep Reading business

•  Love for fine suits turns pharmacist into fashion designer sensation
•  The struggles of doing business next to learning institutions
•  Developer defends use of Jevanjee Gardens' land as collateral for Sh1.9b loan Premium
•  Metrofile and KARMA partner to boost Kenya's digital transformation
•  Airport concession: A global trend with immense benefits if done competitively

The lawyers contended that Mwangaza was not given an opportunity to defend herself before the Senate and that the Speaker failed to maintain order during the chaotic debate on the impeachment Motion.

They claimed that the decision to send her home had been predetermined, as the Senate had prepared a gazette notice a day before the Senators voted to remove her.

"It is undisputed that the voting concluded and the Senate announced its final resolution on August 21, 2024. The gazette notice produced by the Senate indicates it was prepared and signed in advance on August 20, 2024, suggesting that the outcome was predetermined and that the entire hearing process was a decoy," Mutuma stated.

Additionally, he noted that the Clerk and the Speaker communicated the resolution to the county assembly in a letter dated August 20, a day before the Senate's final resolution.

Mutuma further argued that it was illegal for the Governor to be charged with similar offences for which the Senate acquitted her in 2023.

"The Senate recited the procedure set out under Article 181 of the Constitution and Section 33 of the County Governments Act, yet it failed to acknowledge the obvious flaws, illegalities, procedural improprieties, and bias that characterised the impeachment motion," said Mutuma.

The lawyers warned that if conservatory orders were not granted, the Deputy Governor would be sworn in, which could disrupt county affairs.

"We are asking you to maintain the status quo and allow the Governor to continue working until the court resolves the matter."

In response, Kingi argued that the people of Meru exercised their right to impeach the Governor, insisting that was no court order halting the impeachment process.

"The orders were made on a different motion dated July 15, 2024, while the motion that led to the impeachment is dated July 31, 2024," the Senate argued.

He urged the court to lift the order that has halted the replacement of Mwangaza.

The Senate noted that the county assembly was not named in the application that stopped the impeachment.

"The Governor will not suffer prejudice since this is a public office, not a personal matter. It is the people who have exercised their right to impeach the governor."

Further, the Senate contended that Mwangaza improperly sued only the Speaker while excluding the lawmakers who voted in favour of her removal.