After the impeachment of Rigathi Gachagua, petitions have been filed seeking conservatory orders to stay the Senate’s decision.
Rigathi Gachagua, through his lawyer Paul Muite, along with the human rights organization Sheria Mtaani represented by their counsel Danstan Omari and Shadrack Wambui, and senior lawyer Mutembei Marete, who represents 32 applicants, seeks a court order to restrain the National Assembly from endorsing a nominee proposed by the Head of State.
The petitioners urged the court to intervene by issuing a conservatory order to prevent the Speaker of the National Assembly from vetting and approving the proposed nominee, Interior CS Professor Kithure Kindiki pending the determination of his case.
The lawyers further stated that Gachagua was not allowed to defend himself against the allegations made by Kibwezi West MP Mwengi Mutuse, which were presented in Parliament and that the charges levelled against him are baseless and the evidence tabled before Parliament was insufficient.
“Unfounded and false allegations have been made against me in the impeachment motion before both houses. It would be in the interest of justice that such false information be corrected in line with the provisions of article 35 of the constitution,” he said.
Gachagua Moves to Court to Overturn Impeachment
Rigathi Gachagua argues that the Senate was required by law to act as an impartial arbiter in considering whether the charges before it have been substantiated or not.
“It would be prejudicial to my client to allow the respondents gazette his removal by way of impeachment in a manner that stands contrary to basic constitutional provisions before this petition is heard and determined,” argued Muite.
At the same time, Emmanuel Elijah Otieno, Advocate of the High Court of Kenya in his petition argues that the National Assembly’s resolution to impeach Gachagua on October 10 was marred by illegalities, particularly concerning the process and the public participation exercise.
Also Read: Ruto Nominates Deputy President After Gachagua Ouster
“The 1st respondent (National Assembly) allegedly organised, supervised, facilitated and/or conducted public participation in all 290 constituency offices and 47 Women Representative offices across the country on the motion by the 5th Respondent, a process that fell way below the constitutional threshold of public participation as envisaged by law and judicial precedent,” reads the petition in part.
“In a futile attempt to organise, supervise, facilitate and/or conduct public participation as required by law, the 1st Respondent came up with a public view template form which was used to collect public views. The form outlined the allegations and/or grounds upon which the motion to impeach the 7th Respondent (Gachagua) was based but did not include his response to any of the allegations.”
Other Petitions Filed Challenging Senate’s Decision
He asserts that Gachagua was presented to the public as guilty of all the charges and the public view template form as drafted was intended to collect adverse views against him in order to create a narrative that the public is in support of the motion.
Also Read: DP Rigathi Gachagua Impeached by Senators
The petitioner also alleges that the House violated and/or infringed on the Gachagua’s right to be accorded a fair hearing and/or administrative action that is efficient and procedurally fair.
“The 1st Respondent had already adjudged the 7th Respondent guilty and was in a rush to pass the motion to impeach him without considering the rules of natural justice,” he added.
Otieno sated that despite the fact that Gachagua specifically answered to all the allegations and/or grounds satisfactorily, the same was just a formality as a decision to impeach had already been made.
Additionally, the advocate mentioned that Senate failed to pass a procedural motion to have the impeached DP evidence heard on Saturday October 19 and instead voted to proceed with the hearing without according to him an opportunity to defend himself.
“The failure to pass the motion which under the rules of procedure was made due to exceptional circumstances regarding the health condition of the 7th Respondent demonstrates malice on the part of the 3rd Respondent,” the petitioner adds.
“The 3rd Respondent (Senate) resolved to remove the 7th Respondent from office by impeachment thereby upholding five grounds of impeachment.”
Follow our WhatsApp Channel for real-time news updates!
https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VaB3k54HltYFiQ1f2i2C
