Gachagua sues Parliament, seeks to block Kindiki from assuming DP office

Former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua has moved to court to block Parliament from processing or swearing in Prof. Kithure Kindiki as his successor.

President William Ruto sent Kindiki’s name to the National Assembly for processing to be Kenya’s second in command hours after the Senate voted to remove Gachagua from office.

While terming the impeachment process by the National Assembly and subsequent removal from office as a sham and a mockery of the constitution, Gachagua claimed that Members of Parliament relied on fabricated and false claims to hang him politically.

Gachagua accused Dr. Ruto of having a hand in the impeachment process.

.

Keep Reading business

•  Co-op Bank third-quarter profit jumps to Sh19b on higher income
•  I am not about to retire, Equity's James Mwangi says Premium
•  Report: Construction sector leads in mobile money use Premium
•  Delayed projects leave Kenya's blue economy limping Premium
•  Firms seek solutions in renewable energy to curb high cost of power

He stated that the mover of the impeachment process, Kibwezi West MP Mwengi Mutuse, the witnesses he called, and the Ethic and Anti-corruption Commission (EACC) never substantiated any of the charges against him.

Gachagua’s lawyer, Paul Muite, in the case filed before High Court Judge Chacha Mwita, further said that the Senate was just a conveyor belt in a grand scheme to kick him out of office.

The senior lawyer said that despite the Speaker of Senate Amason Kingi and Senators being aware that Gachagua had been taken ill and rushed to Karen Hospital, they declined a plea to allow him to get medical attention before he could take the witness stand to tell his side of the story.

Muite further argued that there was no need to rush the Senate proceedings, as no timeline is set for the plenary to conclude and decide a motion.

Senators upheld five charges and dismissed six.

However, Gachagua asserts that he was condemned unheard as he had evidence to rebut the allegations.

“The applicant fell ill in the course of the hearing on October 17, 2024 as a result of which he was rushed to hospital and was admitted for urgent medical attention. In a surprising turn of events, the Senate voted to proceed with the hearing in the absence of the Petitioner thus denying him his right to a fair hearing. The  Senate conducted itself in an unconstitutional manner and denied the Applicant the right to a fair hearing. His rights under Article 50(1) of the Constitution were breached,” argued Muite.

According to the senior lawyer, Kingi violated the constitution by allowing new affidavits that had not been presented before National Assembly to be admitted.

He termed the session as a mechanical and or methodical move that was meant to frustrate Gachagua from telling his side of story.

He asserted that the embattled politician’s right to health superceded SenateMs rush to beat the deadline

“There has been a demonstrated urgency to remove the Deputy-President from office and install another person, which may be done hurriedly with a view to frustrating the Deputy-President, hence the urgency to hear this petition and the application,” argued Muite.

According to Muite, the National Assembly had already gazetted Friday for a special sitting to process the nominee.

He nevertheless argued that the August House cannot move without the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission(IEBC) having commissioners.

The senior lawyer further argued that the commission should vet the nominee’s suitability and conduct public participation before the person is given a green light to occupy the office.

“Upon the nomination of a Deputy President nominee for submission to the National Assembly for voting, the nominee should be subjected to public participation in line with the provisions of Article 10 and 118 of the Constitution. In addition, since the National Assembly would be exercising delegated powers, the Constitution requires the nominee to be subjected to public participation before voting. There is clear indication that the President and the National Assembly are proceeding in blatant disregard of these constitutional imperatives,” said Muite.

In his supporting affidavit, Gachagua stated that the National Assembly passed the impeachment motion on grounds not set in motion. He said that MPs turned the session into a trial of his family without giving his children and spouse a chance to be heard.

“Members of the National Assembly supported the motion on grounds other than those set out in the Motion. The impeachment was instead converted into a vicarious assault on family rather than the investigation of constitutional violations by a public servant,” said Gachagua.

According to him, MPs trivialized the session and lowered the threshold for seeking accountability from public officials to normal human interactions, including inheriting property from a relative and owning a family company.

He claimed that he was a sheep tried in a court of hyenas. Gachagua stated that he could not have found justice in a house where speaker Moses Wetang’ula and deputy speaker Gladys Shollei had already taken a position that he should be impeached.

“The first respondent and Deputy Speaker of the National Assembly took a partisan position against me before, during, and after the tabling of the impeachment motion in violation of the provisions of Articles 47 and 50. Consequently, I was not accorded a fair trial as required under the Constitution,” he claimed.

Gachagua also claimed that the National Assembly conducted a sham public participation. He said that in one constituency, the collated report indicated that 40 people turned out, but 70 people voted for his removal from office, translating for over 162 percent support.

He argued that Kenyans had not been educated on how to process the questionnaires nor were they given his side of the story.

“There are glaring errors that are clearly indicative of a process that is not accurate or verifiable. The public was not accorded an opportunity to consider my response to the allegations against me. They were therefore not properly equipped to respond to the question as to whether they supported my impeachment or not,” continued Gachagua.

He said Mutuse admitted at the Senate that he had no evidence to support his allegations. At the same time, Gachagua 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.

He wants the court to block any person from taking over the office. At the same time, he is seeking a finding that the impeachment and removal from office processes are unconstitutional, illegal, and null and void.