Rift deepens as Gachagua drops Ruto lawyer in referendum case

Showdown looms between President William Ruto and former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua over a case filed to remove them from office through a referendum.

Gachagua has dropped the lawyer representing him alongside Ruto in the case filed by Fanya Mambo Kinuthia before High Court Judge Chacha Mwita.

Initially, the president and his former deputy were being represented by senior lawyer Fred Ngatia.

They had jointly urged the High Court to dismiss the case filed by 14 activists and lawyers who wanted the court to call for a referendum to remove them from office.

.

Keep Reading business

•  African ministers champion ICT adoption for sustainable growth
•  Digital lender Tala surpasses Sh300bn mobile loans as Kenyans borrow more
•  KCB beats Equity in profits race as earnings after tax hit Sh44.5b
•  Government back to drawing board after KRA misses tax targets
•  Adani plunges in Mumbai on founder's charges as Asian markets retreat

However, after his impeachment, Gachagua decided to change his course in the case, indicating that his interests were no longer the same as those of his former boss.

If he decides to support the case argued by lawyer Kibe Mungai on behalf of Kenya Bora Tuitakayo Citizens Union, activists Cyprian Nyamwamu and Khelef Khalifa, Janet Muthoni, Captain Paul Rukaria, and Prof Fred Ogolla, Gachagua will directly be at war with his former boss.

In place of Ngatia, the former DP has appointed Echessa and Bwire and Company Advocates.

“Take notice that the 2nd respondent herein, has appointed the firm of Echessa & Bwire Advocates to act for him in this Petition in place of Ms. Ngatia & Associates Advocates,” the notice seen by The Standard reads in part.

Gachagua has been in the opening, urging the current administration not to overtax Kenyans. Taxation is among the main issues that the group led by Khalifa claim that the duo had failed to serve Kenyans diligently.

Nevertheless, Gachagua is already out of the matrix for removal as he was impeached by Parliament, leaving the president isolated in the battle.

“An order of mandatory injunction be issued to compel the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) to conduct a referendum to determine whether the tenure of President and Deputy President of the Republic of Kenya should be terminated on account of gross violation of the Constitution, abuse of power, incompetent governance and irreversible loss of public trust and legitimacy,” the petitioners urge the court.

In the case, Kibe claimed that the president and his then deputy violated the Constitution more than 31 times since they were sworn into office in September 2022.
He stated that they allowed oppressive taxation, extrajudicial killings of anti-government protesters over the high cost of living and entering into secret agreements with the US government.

Ruto and Gachagua were also accused of capturing Parliament, encouraging and inducing the defection of MPs in order to turn the Kenya Kwanza Alliance into the majority party in the National Assembly.

They were blamed for advocating and implementing a tax regime and economic policies prescribed by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) that are adverse to the well-being and benefit of Kenyan people and appointing state and public officials in an ethnically discriminatory manner.

The President was further accused of appointing Cabinet in breach of the principle of two-thirds gender rule. The petitioners also contend that by using Kenya Revenue Authority to collect cess in the counties, the president has undermined devolution. “President has run the government in a manner that has interfered with the management of health, markets, land rates, livestock, cows and chickens etc,” the petitioners say.

They argued that the setting up of the E-Citizen Single paybill as directed by IMF and World Bank has fundamentally violated the constitutional principle set out in Article 6 of the Constitution. 
The petitioners also contended that the president allegedly intimidated independent offices including the Directorate of Public Prosecutions (DPP) to withdraw so many graft cases against people in his administration including the Sh7.3 billion case against his deputy Gachagua.

“The President has refused to carry out a forensic audit of the public debt yet over 50 per cent of our debt is illegal and odious debt. The continued payment of these odious debts is against the interest of the country, this is a major issue. Parliament has failed because the president has intimidated Parliament so much that it no longer serves national interests. The reason we are in court as agents of necessity,” they argued.

They faulted the Kenya Kwanza regime for not allowing corruption cases reported by Controller of Budget to be probed and those found culpable prosecuted.

Further, the petitioners pointed fingers at the President for exposing over 1,000 Kenyan police officers by sending them to Haiti.

“The courts in Kenya have clearly ruled against this deployment but the President insists that he will send the police officers to Haiti with impunity against the will of most Kenyans and of Haitians,” said Kibe.

The petitioners claimed the 50 Chief Administrative Secretaries that the court last year declared their appointment unconstitutional are drawing salaries, which is a violation of the Constitution and misuse of power.

They accuse Ruto and Gachagua of not dealing with the political crisis within the confines of the Constitution even deploying Kenya Defence Forces (KDF) officers on peaceful protesters and abducting others.

“In a constitutional democracy, there can be no justification for the President to deploy the Kenya Defence Forces to prevent unarmed citizens from protesting and picketing as guaranteed by Article 37 of the Constitution,” he said.

The petitioners faulted Ruto of violating Articles 12, 28, and 38 of the Constitution in criminalizing the good governance protests led by the Generation Z youthful activists, labeling them as terrorists and unleashing State violence against them.

They accused the Kenya Kwanza administration of permitting “political thugs, saboteurs, agent provocateurs, and other goons” to infiltrate the Gen Z-led protests and cause mayhem in the country.

“Given the brutality, abductions, and cold-blooded executions that the police have hitherto unleashed on protesters, it is important that orders be given to direct the respondents to respect the human rights of protesters, particularly the rights to life, personal safety, and human dignity,” they stated.

According to the petitioners, the underdressed economic crisis witnessed in the country after the Finance Bill 2024 withdrawal could easily trigger and expedite Kenya’s descent into a Sri Lankan, Lebanese, or Sudanese-type State collapse.

They further questioned the President’s move to consent to the US’s designation of Kenya as a non-NATO ally, arguing that the move was made devoid of transparency.

“Such a decision is potentially risky to Kenya’s national security and its non-aligned foreign policy,” they argued.

The petitioners accuse Ruto and Rigathi of aiding and abetting the misappropriation of public funds in a scheme where Sh17 billion was used for oil import subsidy in the Ministry of Energy.

In the case, the 14 petitioners seek several orders, including a declaration that the people of Kenya may terminate the terms of office of all elected officials in the exercise of their sovereign power under Article 1 of the Constitution.

“A declaration be issued to declare that the terms of office of the President and Deputy President of the Republic of Kenya may be terminated by the people of Kenya in the exercise of their sovereign power under Article 1 of the Constitution through a referendum supervised by the IEBC,” argued Kibe.

On the other hand, Ngatia argued that there was no dispute before the court. Instead, he stated that the issues raised were an academic exercise.

According to him, only Parliament can kick out a President and his Deputy.

He urged the court to strike out the case. He cast doubts on the authenticity of documents.

The case will be mentioned today.