Why High Court has suspended Governor Mwangaza's impeachment

When Meru Governor Kawira Mwangaza joined her husband her husband Baichu Murega after he graduated with a degree in Transformational Church Leadership from Pan Africa Christian (PAC) University, Nairobi on Friday, July 12, 2024. [File, Standard]

The High Court in Nairobi has issued conservatory orders suspending the impeachment of Meru Governor Kawira Mwangaza.

The court stopped Senate Speaker ="https://www.standardmedia.co.ke/national/article/2001501373/reprieve-for-kawira-mwangaza-as-court-suspends-impeachment">Amason Kingi from gazetting< Mwangaza'a impeachment.

The orders issued by Justice Bahati Mwamuye mean that Mwangaza remains in office until the application she filed on Wednesday is heard and determined.

“Pending the inter partes hearing and determination of the application dated August 21, 2024, a conservatory order be and is hereby issued staying the furtherance or the implementation of the Resolution of the Senate removing the Governor of Meru County, Hon Kawira Mwangaza, from Office by way of impeachment,” ruled Justice Mwamuye.

At the same time, the judge also barred the Senate Speaker, or any other person or authority, from publishing a notification or declaration of a vacancy in the Office of the Governor of Meru county.

Mwangaza moved to the High Court seeking to suspend the Senate’s decision to oust her from office.

Hours after 26 Senators agreed with Members of the ="https://www.standardmedia.co.ke/politics/article/2001501349/senate-upholds-governor-kawira-mwangazas-impeachment">County Assembly that she should< be impeached, Kawira asked the High Court to block swearing of a new governor until her case is heard and determined.

In an exercise she termed a sham, the governor said that senators were used to rubber stamp a political scheme to remove her from office despite court orders.

Her lawyer, Elias Mutuma, told the court that senators and Speaker Kingi were aware of court orders halting the impeachment process.

At the same time, Mutuma said that the three charges against the governor were before different courts in the country.

He argued that Senate should not have entertained the issues the mover raised without clearance from Judges.

In the first count, Mwangaza’s lawyer said that Kawira Miriti was revoked as the Meru County Service Board Chief Executive Officer before the Employment and Labour Relations Court.

The second count, he said, was on dismissal of County Revenue Board CEO, and three others. The court heard that this case was also before court.

The other was about Daniel Muthiani's murder. Mutuma said that this is an active murder case before the Kiambu High Court.

The lawyer said that Kingi overruled an objection raised by the senator who had informed the House of the court case.

“The failure of the respondent to make a ruling on the issue of pending court matters which formed the substance of the impeachment motion before the Senate and which had halted the impeachment process tainted the entire process with illegalities,” argued Mutuma.

He said the Senate also failed to consider that the movers of the impeachment had brought the same charges despite the same having been dismissed in the second impeachment ouster.

The lawyer accused senators of flip-flopping in their decisions. He argued that in first and second ouster motions, they held that the claims could not be substantiated.

However, the lawyer said that the issues were the same in the third attempt, but the senators changed their stand.

Mwangaza also took issue with the Senate’s failure to gazette Tuesday as the day that its members would take a vote.

 She said that at least 14 Senators were deliberately denied a chance to vote and participate in the proceedings.

According to her, the session turned chaotic,="https://www.standardmedia.co.ke/national/article/2001484878/impeachment-kawira-mwangaza-pleads-not-guilty-to-charges"> and the failure to have all senators < express their positions violated her right to be heard.

“Senate is required by law to act as an impartial arbitrator and the petitioner’s right to have any dispute determined before an independent and impartial body in considering whether the charges have been substantiated or not,” Mutuma argued.

Mwangaza asked the court to find that the Senate failed to properly assess each of the specified grounds and determine if they collectively or individually constituted

gross violation of the constitution warranting the removal from office.

At the same time, she urged for declaration that section 33 (8) of the County Government Act is unconstitutional for allowing MCAs to re-introduce the same charges which previously failed after the expiry of three months.

According to her, this amounted to double jeopardy.

“The session where senators voted to remove the Governor by impeachment was characterized by serious breaches of established principles of law as well as the Senate Standing Orders, given that the bulk of the matters forming the impeachment motion are actively under consideration before competent courts of law,” argued Mutuma.

The case will be mentioned on September 17, 2024