Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua’s legal team is raising significant concerns over Siaya Governor James Orengo’s role in the ongoing impeachment proceedings against Gachagua, as the governor steps in to represent the National Assembly (NA). Led by lawyer Ndegwa Njiru, Gachagua’s defense argues that Orengo’s participation as lead counsel for the National Assembly poses a conflict of interest due to his status as a full-time state officer. This objection has heightened the legal drama surrounding Gachagua’s impeachment process, which has already attracted public and political attention.
As the proceedings continue, the Senate will be called to deliberate on the validity of the defense’s objection, with Speaker Amason Kingi set to make a crucial ruling that could shape the course of the impeachment motion. With high-profile lawyers on both sides of the debate, the question of whether Orengo should be allowed to participate will not only impact Gachagua’s defense but could also set a legal precedent in Kenya’s political and judicial landscape.
Gachagua’s Legal Objection: Orengo’s Status as a State Officer
The heart of the defense’s objection revolves around James Orengo’s dual role as both the Siaya County Governor and the lead counsel for the National Assembly. According to Article 260 of the Kenyan Constitution, a full-time state officer is barred from engaging in any other form of gainful employment. Lawyer Ndegwa Njiru contends that Orengo’s participation in the proceedings conflicts with his duties as a sitting governor. The defense claims this could result in a breach of constitutional mandates, which, if allowed, would be prejudicial to Gachagua.
“James Orengo is a full-time serving state officer and is barred from engaging in employment,” Njiru argued during a preliminary objection, adding that allowing Orengo to represent the National Assembly would violate constitutional provisions. He emphasized that similar objections had been upheld in the past, referring to a 2021 High Court ruling in which Orengo, then the Siaya Senator, was barred from representing Dr. Daniel Manduku, former managing director of the Kenya Ports Authority, in a corruption case.
The defense’s strategy relies on framing Orengo’s involvement as unconstitutional and inappropriate under the current laws governing state officers, as stipulated in Articles 77 and 260. Njiru’s argument is that state officers are prohibited from partaking in any activities that might constitute gainful employment outside their official duties, whether directly or indirectly. He further objected to the introduction of any new evidence against Gachagua, arguing that it would be unfair to his client under the current legal framework.
Counterarguments from the National Assembly
The National Assembly’s legal team, led by lawyer Eric Gumbo, immediately refuted the defense’s objections. Gumbo maintained that the defense had failed to present sufficient evidence to substantiate the claim that Orengo’s involvement constituted gainful employment. He emphasized that under Article 77 of the Constitution, no breach had occurred, as the article specifically speaks to restrictions on state officers engaging in outside employment for personal gain.
“The Constitution of Kenya, Article 77, is the primary law that speaks to the restrictions on activities of state officers,” Gumbo said in response. “There has been no assertion that Senior Counsel James Orengo, by representing a party before this House, has participated in gainful employment. In any case, what evidence has been tendered before this House to support that claim?”
Gumbo’s argument suggests that representing the National Assembly in legal proceedings does not amount to employment in a conventional sense, as it is part of Orengo’s role as a legal professional and public servant. He also questioned the defense’s reliance on past rulings, arguing that each case should be judged on its own merits and specific circumstances.
This clash between the defense and the National Assembly over the interpretation of the Constitution’s provisions on state officers has added a layer of complexity to the proceedings. While Njiru’s team is focused on ensuring Gachagua’s rights are protected through strict constitutional adherence, Gumbo’s camp sees Orengo’s involvement as lawful and within the bounds of his responsibilities as a public servant and lawyer.
Impeachment Charges and the Timeline
The legal back-and-forth over Orengo’s role comes amidst the ongoing impeachment process against Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua, who faces 11 charges, including abuse of office, corruption, and mismanagement of public resources. Gachagua, who has pleaded not guilty to all charges, has consistently maintained that the charges are politically motivated and part of a larger scheme to undermine his office.
The National Assembly has been allocated a maximum of three hours to present its case and re-examine witnesses, while the Deputy President’s legal team has been given two hours to cross-examine witnesses. The Senate, in turn, will have an opportunity to pose questions and seek clarifications from both sides before debating a special motion on the charges. Each side will then deliver closing statements, with a maximum of one hour allotted per party.
On Thursday, Gachagua is scheduled to present his case before the Senate, where he will have three hours to make his arguments and re-examine witnesses. The National Assembly, led by Orengo (should the Senate allow it), will have two hours for cross-examination. The Senate will then proceed with questioning before a final debate and vote on the charges. Speaker Amason Kingi is expected to issue a ruling on the defense’s objection regarding Orengo’s participation, which could significantly impact how the case unfolds.
The Role of the Senate in Impeachment Proceedings
The Senate plays a critical role in the impeachment process of a deputy president, as it serves as the final body to deliberate and vote on the charges brought by the National Assembly. In this case, Gachagua’s defense team is placing its hopes on the Senate’s impartiality and adherence to constitutional law.
Should the Senate uphold the objection and bar Orengo from participating, the National Assembly would be forced to appoint a new lead counsel, which could delay proceedings and potentially weaken the Assembly’s case. On the other hand, if the objection is dismissed, Orengo’s participation will continue, and the National Assembly’s legal team will proceed with its cross-examination and arguments.
The Senate will also be called upon to consider an affidavit filed by businessman Peterson Njomo Muchira, who claims to possess key evidence that could influence the ongoing impeachment motion. Muchira’s testimony could provide new insights into the case, further complicating the defense’s strategy.
Conclusion
The ongoing legal dispute surrounding Governor James Orengo’s role in representing the National Assembly in the impeachment proceedings against Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua has brought to light important constitutional questions about the roles and responsibilities of state officers. With both sides presenting strong arguments and the Senate poised to make a crucial ruling, the outcome of the impeachment process remains uncertain.
As the Senate reconvenes, all eyes will be on Speaker Amason Kingi’s ruling, which could set a new precedent for how state officers engage in legal matters and representation. For Gachagua, the stakes are high as he fights to retain his position, and the decisions made in the coming days will have long-lasting political and legal implications for Kenya’s governance system.
