Gachagua's lawyer criticises judges in impeachment case

Impeached Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua. [Standard, File]

Impeached Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua's lawyer has condemned three judges for not halting the impeachment process despite a set timeline to review applications from Parliament and the Attorney General.

In a letter to Deputy Registrar John Njomo, the lawyer called for an investigation into how a petition from one lawyer reached the judges without going through Chief Justice Martha Koome.

The lawyer has lodged a formal complaint with the Judicial Service Commission (JSC).

“In the meantime, we are instructed to request that an investigation be launched to establish how the file (Nairobi High Court Petition No. E565 of 2024) moved from Justice Chacha to the three judges without express directions from the Chief Justice. There are preliminary indications that the Chief Justice was not even in the country at the material time in question,” said Njomo.

The lawyer raised concerns after Justices Eric Ogola, Fred Mugambi and Anthony Mrima dismissed their application for conservatory orders to stop the installation of a new deputy president on Wednesday, October 16.

The judges instructed that the file be submitted to Koome to form a bench of an uneven number of judges, setting October 24 as the mention date.

Gachagua's legal team requested a mention on October 18, but the court denied the request, stating that the earliest available date was October 29.

However, the same judges convened on Saturday, October 19, to consider an application from Parliament and the Attorney General.

The judges also addressed Kerugoya High Court Petition No. E565 and set a hearing for October 22 regarding the new deputy president's swearing-in, previously scheduled for mention on October 24.

The lawyer questioned whether the cases directed to the Chief Justice had been consolidated.

“As counsel for the Petitioner in Nairobi High Court Petition No. E565 of 2024, we have not been heard on the issue of consolidation, and it is very strange that the petitions can be termed as such. It is therefore not clear when and how the two petitions were consolidated (if at all),” the lawyer said.

Lawyer Njomo noted potential biases against the petitioner.

 “There is a clear case of bias in the manner in which the Petitioner is being treated. It is also evident that the jurisdiction of the Chief Justice is being usurped. The lightning speed with which the Kerugoya file was grabbed and directions issued on a Saturday seems like a well-orchestrated plan to trample on the rights of the Petitioner by denying him a fair trial, right from the National Assembly, all the way to the Senate and now at the Judiciary.”