MPs' quick nod, two court orders and fightback on dramatic Friday

A unanimous vote by MPs in favour of the nomination of Interior Cabinet Secretary Kithure Kindiki as Deputy President and two court orders stopping him from assuming the office marked the dramatic Friday in the impeachment of Rigathi Gachagua.

The High Court in Nairobi issued orders at around noon, just as the National Assembly was passing Kindiki’s appointment.

Justice Chacha Mwita handed Gachagua a lifeline by suspending the Senate’s gazette notice which spelt the end of his career as DP. He also blocked Kindiki’s appointment.

.

Keep Reading business

•  Treasury goes for UAE loan as IMF cautions of debt situation Premium
•  Traders claim closure of liquor stores, bars near schools punitive Premium
•  Adani fallout is a lesson on accountability and transparency fight Premium
•  Sustainable finance in focus for Kenyan banks as Co-op Bank feted
•  Inside battle for control of Bamburi Cement

Nevertheless, in yet another twist to a dramatic day, Justice Richard Mwongo of the High Court in Kerugoya directed that Kindiki should not assume office.

“In light of the nature of the matters raised herein as noted in Order Three herein, conservatory orders are hereby issued against the implementation of the resolution of the Senate in terms of Prayer C of the Notice of Motion, preventing any person including the 2nd interested party (Kindiki) appointed by the President and approved by the National Assembly from assuming the office of the Deputy President,” ruled Justice Mwongo.

Violated the law

This was in a case filed on Friday by David Mathenge and Peter Kamotho. They alleged that the Senate and National Assembly had violated the law, hence, the impeachment was null and void.

The two also stated that Kindiki had been processed without following the law, including public participation and clearance from the Independent Electoral and Boundary Commission (IEBC).

The court heard that the IEBC is not properly constituted hence the secretariat cannot clear a candidate.

On public participation, they asserted that a new Deputy President cannot assume office unless Kenyans from all the constituencies are allowed to give their views.

Mathenge and Kamotho were among litigants who moved to court to challenge the impeachment process alongside Gachagua who filed his case at Milimani High Court.

Others who also filed separate cases are Father Eddie Waiguru, Anthony Mwithaga, Victor Ngatia, Gema Watho, Peter Kimani and Alice Wamuhu. There are a total of 32 petitioners in Fr Waiguru’s case.

Their grievance was that President William Ruto had conspired with Parliament to kick out Gachagua owing to his sentiments on the ills committed by the Kenya Kwanza government during the Finance Act 2024 protests.

According to them, Ruto is on a quest to find a person who is agreeable to the problems faced by the current administration.

Then there was lawyer Elijah Otieno who also filed another case.

Otieno argued that impeaching Gachagua from office was an act of political deceit, vendetta and betrayal against him and the people of the Mount Kenya region.

According to him, the move by Parliament was too fatal to Gachagua as it sent him to political oblivion without hearing him.

“The irreparable consequences of a successful impeachment motion of a President or Deputy President of the Republic of Kenya is that the holder of the office is permanently barred from holding any public office and therefore great care ought to be taken to ensure legal and constitutional compliance to the hilt in the processing of a motion of such a nature,” argued Otieno.

From all the petitions filed yesterday, the issues raised ranged from the evidence submitted by Kibwezi West Member of Parliament Mwengi Mutuse, the Speaker of National Assembly’s sentiments in favour of impeachment, and the Senate’s failure to adjourn to accommodate Gachagua after he fell ill.