Impeached Gachagua suffers blow after judges stay put on hearing his case

 

Impeached Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua yesterday suffered another setback after three High Court judges threw out his application seeking to push them from hearing his removal from office case.

The ruling was the second loss for Gachagua in a row. It was short and a big win to the government but a blow to Gachagua and other petitioners who wanted the judges to recuse themselves from the suit.

Justices Eric Ogola, Freda Mugambi and Anthony Mrima did not allow lawyers from either side to speak.

When the files were called out, Justice Ogola, said they had an abridged ruling but they would upload a detailed one in the judiciary’s electronic system.

He further said that they had decided to dismiss the application and would hear applications by the Attorney General and National Assembly to set aside orders issued in favour of Gachagua next week on Tuesday.

“The applications for recusal are hereby disallowed. The petitioners are hereby granted leave to file and serve amended petitions, if need be, within five days of this order,” said Justice Ogola.

The bench did not wait for reactions or comments from lawyers. The trio rose and left, leaving lawyers in awe.

The ruling came as another case was filed challenging Kithure Kindiki’s nomination as Deputy President.

Joseph Enock Aura in his case filed on Friday argued that Kenyans from four constituencies that are yet to be filled through by-elections were denied a chance to participate in the impeachment process.

He was of the view that Kenyans in Magarini, Ugunja, Banisa, and Gwassi constituencies needed to have their voices heard before Rigathi was impeached or participated in Kindiki’s appointment.

His lawyer Harrison Kinyajui said that Parliament never conducted public participation as required by the law in the four constituencies.

“Petitioner seeks that the resolution purportedly passed by the National Assembly dated October 18, 2024, purporting to approve and/or approve for appointment Prof Abraham Kithure Kindiki as the Deputy President of the Republic of Kenya, as contained in Kenya Gazette Notice No 13401 Vol CXXVI - No 171 is null and void, and ultra vires the Constitution of Kenya’s Article 108 of Kenya for inter alia being unlawful and for want of public participation,” argued Kinyajui.

In the applications heard on Wednesday, Gachagua cited Justice Mrima’s friendship with Senate Speaker Amason Kingi and the appointment of Justice Eric Ogola’s spouse to a government body as reasons for the judge's recusal from the cases.

It was alleged that Justice Mrima and Kingi were close friends and the latter attended the former’s wedding.

At the same time, it was alleged that Justice Ogola’s wife had been appointed to the board of Kenya Water Towers Agency by President William Ruto.

The government side, however, termed the claims as too flimsy and splitting hairs to derail the hearing. Lawyer Githu Muigai, for the National Assembly, said that the claims were not backed by evidence.

He asserted that there was nothing to impeach the judges’ reputation or professional oath in the applications.

Gachagua on Thursday backed two new applications filed in a renewed bid to have three judges appointed last week to hear his impeachment case to withdraw.

The applications for recusal were filed by Aburi Namenya, David Munyi, Peter Gichobi, Grace Muthoni, Clement Muchiri, and Edwin Munene.

The embattled DP did not file any court papers to support the applications.

Instead, his lawyers Paul Muite, Elisha Ongoya, Victor Swanya, Faith Waigwa and Tom Macharia opted to respond orally.

Lawyer Macharia said that photos from Kingi’s social media account showed him gifting Justice Mrima during a wedding and indicating that they were long-time friends.

According to him, it was an issue for the speaker to attend the wedding. Instead, the judge failed to disclose that he knew Kingi.

“Recusal would be the only thing that would do justice not only to the applicant but the court itself,” argued Macharia.

Muite said the case was important for the country and needed judges who were perceived to be neutral.