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

Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua (2nd left) with his lawyers Paul Muite, Tom Macharia, Njiru Ndegwa and Elisha Ongoya at the Senate Chambers during his impeachment motion hearing on October 17, 2024. [Elvis Ogina, Standard]

A unanimous vote by MPs in favour of nomination of Prof. 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 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.

 The judge said the case raised novel issues and sent the file to the Chief Justice Martha Koome to empanel a bench of more than three.

 Despite the orders, National Assembly Speaker Moses Wetang’ula gazetted Kindiki’s appointment, which paved way for the Interior Cabinet Secretary to take over DP’s office.

 Nevertheless, in yet another twist to a dramatic day, Justice Richad 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 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,” ruked Justice Mwongo.

 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.

 In total, there 32 petitioners in the Waiguru 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 Kenya Kwanza government during Finance Act 2024 protests.

 According to them, Ruto is in quest to plant a person whom is agreeable to the problems faced by the current administration.

 Then there was lawyer Elijah Otieno who filed another case.

 He argued that impeaching Gachagua from office is an act of political deceit, vendetta and betrayal against him and the people of 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 ever holding any public office in the future and therefore great care ought to be had to ensure legal and constitutional compliance to the hilt in 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, Speaker of National Assembly’s sentiments in favour impeachment, and Senate’s failure to adjoun in order to accomodate Gachagua after he fell ill.

 In his case, Gachagua said that Mutuse admitted at the Senate that he had no evidence to support his allegations. At the same time, Gachagua further  said the mover also told Senators he included companies that he had no problem with.

 On the shareholding, Gachagua explained that the claim that he had referred to the Republic of Kenya as a company was untrue. According to him, the correct position was that the reference to a company was about the government sharing as provided for in the various pre-election Coalition Agreements of the political parties constituting the Kenya Kwanza Alliance.

 He said he had prepared to face the house at 2.30 pm but fell ill during the lunch break.

 The embattled DP argued that he was willing to appear, but the Senate opted to conclude the process for removal from office without his presence and representation.

 According to him, this is a violation of the constitution.

 “ It is patently clear that the entire impeachment process was conducted in an unconstitutional manner tailor-made to remove me from office. The proceedings all the way from the National Assembly to the Senate being unconstitutional amount to a nullity and I urge this honorable court to hold them as such. The process was hurriedly choreographed to ensure that I was illegally impeached without meeting the threshold laid down in the law,” said Gachagua.