Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua suffered a major blow after the High Court upheld a decision by Deputy Chief Justice (DCJ) Philomena Mwilu to appoint a three-judge bench to oversee his impeachment proceedings. The ruling, delivered on Wednesday, clarified the administrative powers of the DCJ and reaffirmed the judicial process in handling high-profile constitutional matters.
The three-judge panel comprising Justices Freda Mugambi, Eric Ogola, and Antony Mrima ruled that DCJ Mwilu’s actions in appointing the bench were within her constitutional mandate, a move that solidifies the judiciary’s position on administrative responsibilities within the court. This ruling marks another setback for Gachagua, who has been facing increasing legal and political challenges following his impeachment.
Background of Gachagua’s Impeachment
Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua, a central figure in Kenya’s political landscape, has been embroiled in a series of controversies since his tenure began. Known for his outspoken nature and close alliance with President William Ruto, Gachagua’s political career has been marred by allegations of corruption, abuse of office, and misuse of public resources. These accusations led to a motion in Parliament that culminated in his impeachment.
The impeachment process, however, has not been straightforward. Gachagua’s legal team has launched numerous appeals and challenges aimed at slowing or overturning the proceedings. His lawyers argue that many aspects of the impeachment process, including the constitution of the bench, are procedurally flawed. This latest ruling, however, represents a clear setback for the Deputy President as the High Court has now validated the procedures followed by the Deputy Chief Justice.
Court’s Ruling on DCJ Mwilu’s Role
A key contention in Gachagua’s case was the role played by DCJ Philomena Mwilu in appointing the three-judge panel. Gachagua’s legal team argued that the selection of the bench could only be made by Chief Justice Martha Koome. They contended that Mwilu overstepped her authority by appointing the panel in the absence of the Chief Justice, which they claimed violated judicial procedures.
However, in their ruling, the three-judge panel, led by Justice Mrima, found that the DCJ had acted within the powers conferred upon her by the Constitution. The judges cited specific provisions that outline the role of the Deputy Chief Justice, particularly the constitutional mandate that allows the DCJ to substitute the Chief Justice in administrative functions when necessary. The court emphasized that Mwilu’s actions were purely administrative and were executed in compliance with established procedures.
Justice Mrima, speaking on behalf of the bench, stated, “We find that there was a deliberate scheme by the DCJ to deputize the Chief Justice in the Supreme Court, but not the Judicial Service Commission (JSC). The DCJ can assign judges whenever she is discharging administrative duties, especially when the Chief Justice has not raised objections.”
This clarification is crucial, as it establishes a clear distinction between the roles of the Chief Justice and the Deputy Chief Justice in the context of Kenya’s judicial hierarchy. It also provides a framework for future cases in which the DCJ may need to perform administrative functions on behalf of the Chief Justice.
Constitutional Implications
The ruling has significant constitutional implications, particularly regarding the interpretation of the roles and powers of judicial officers. The court’s decision affirms that the DCJ has the authority to carry out administrative duties, including the appointment of judicial panels, when the Chief Justice is unavailable or chooses not to act. This precedent is expected to guide future disputes over the division of responsibilities within Kenya’s judiciary.
For Gachagua, this decision represents a crucial loss in his bid to contest the impeachment proceedings. The ruling removes one of the primary legal challenges his defense team had raised regarding the legitimacy of the judicial process overseeing his case.
Gachagua’s Legal Team and Their Arguments
Gachagua’s lawyers had consistently maintained that the bench could only be constituted by Chief Justice Martha Koome. They argued that by allowing the DCJ to perform this function, the court was undermining the authority of the Chief Justice and violating established judicial norms. Gachagua’s legal team further contended that the DCJ had acted with bias and prejudice in selecting the judges who would preside over the case.
However, the High Court judges dismissed these claims, noting that the Constitution explicitly outlines the DCJ’s ability to perform administrative tasks when necessary. The court also pointed out that there was no evidence to suggest that Mwilu’s actions were motivated by bias or any ulterior motive. The decision, therefore, stands as a firm rejection of the arguments made by Gachagua’s defense.
Timing and Conduct of the Proceedings
Another issue raised by Gachagua’s legal team concerned the timing of the proceedings and the fact that the bench had issued directions outside normal working hours. The defense argued that holding hearings at odd hours, and without the presence of all parties involved, violated judicial norms and denied them a fair chance to present their case.
In response, the court dismissed this argument, asserting that it is not uncommon for courts to issue directions outside of regular working hours, especially in urgent or high-profile cases. Justice Freda Mugambi emphasized that the court has the jurisdiction to issue directions ex-parte (without all parties present), particularly in instances where procedural efficiency is necessary to ensure timely adjudication of the matter.
“It is not unusual for the court to issue directions outside the normal working hours,” stated Justice Freda. “The court can issue directions without the attendance of parties (ex-parte) when it is in the interest of justice.”
This ruling further erodes Gachagua’s defense, as it reinforces the court’s authority to manage the timing and conduct of proceedings as it sees fit, particularly in cases involving senior government officials or urgent legal matters.
Political Ramifications for Gachagua
The High Court’s decision is not only a legal blow for Rigathi Gachagua but also a political one. As Deputy President, Gachagua has been a polarizing figure in Kenyan politics, known for his combative style and fierce loyalty to President William Ruto. His impeachment proceedings have cast a shadow over his political career, and this latest ruling adds to the mounting challenges he faces.
The affirmation of the three-judge bench’s legitimacy paves the way for the impeachment proceedings to continue, bringing Gachagua closer to a potential removal from office. For President Ruto, this development is likely to complicate matters, as Gachagua’s impeachment could destabilize the political alliance that helped secure their electoral victory.
At the same time, the ruling sends a strong message about the independence of Kenya’s judiciary. The court’s decision to uphold DCJ Mwilu’s actions underscores the judiciary’s commitment to maintaining the rule of law and adhering to constitutional procedures, even in the face of political pressure.
Conclusion
In summary, the High Court’s ruling represents a significant victory for the Kenyan judiciary and a considerable setback for Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua. By upholding DCJ Philomena Mwilu’s appointment of the three-judge bench, the court has reaffirmed the constitutional framework governing the roles of the Chief Justice and the Deputy Chief Justice. This decision allows the impeachment proceedings to move forward, bringing Gachagua’s political career into further uncertainty.
As the legal process continues, Gachagua’s defense team will likely explore other avenues to contest the impeachment, but the High Court’s decision stands as a key moment in this high-stakes political drama. Whether this will mark the beginning of the end for Gachagua’s political ambitions remains to be seen, but for now, the judicial process moves forward, undeterred by the challenges posed by Kenya’s complex political landscape.
