The political landscape in Kenya is once again charged with intensity as the impeachment motion against Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua unfolds. Kisii Senator Richard Onyonka has stepped into the spotlight, emphasizing the importance of substantial evidence over hearsay in the Senate’s examination of the charges leveled against Gachagua. This assertion, made during an interview with Citizen TV, highlights the delicate balance between accountability and the political machinations that often characterize such proceedings.
A Fair Process
Senator Onyonka’s commitment to a thorough and fair investigation is notable in the face of mounting public pressure. He stated, “We have decided, and it is very simple. We are looking at the facts.” His approach calls for a meticulous review of all allegations against Gachagua, insisting that no charge should be deemed valid without compelling evidence. This insistence on fact-based proceedings is crucial, especially considering the political implications of the impeachment process. Onyonka’s resolve serves as a reminder that the Senate is not merely a rubber stamp for the National Assembly’s decisions but a body with the responsibility to uphold justice and due process.
The Charges Against Gachagua
Gachagua faces a formidable list of 11 charges, which includes accusations of gross violation of the Constitution, undermining the President and the Cabinet, and compromising judicial independence by publicly attacking a judge. Other serious allegations involve making inciteful statements, committing economic crimes, spreading false and divisive remarks, and public insubordination toward the President. Each of these charges carries significant weight and could potentially shape the future of Gachagua’s political career, depending on the Senate’s findings.
The National Assembly has already demonstrated a clear inclination towards Gachagua’s ouster, with 281 members voting in favor, only 44 against, and one abstention. However, Onyonka’s assertion that the Senate will conduct a careful review serves to remind the public and his colleagues that impeachment is not merely a procedural formality; it demands rigorous scrutiny.
Evidence vs. Hearsay
One of the key issues raised by Onyonka is the distinction between hearsay and concrete evidence. In his comments, he challenged those making accusations against Gachagua to provide verifiable proof, particularly regarding claims of him disinheriting his brother’s children. This is a crucial point in political proceedings, where the line between legitimate concerns and political rhetoric can easily blur.
Onyonka stated, “If you say that the Deputy President has participated in disinheriting [the] children of his brother, please give me the evidence. I am not going to be discussing hearsay.” This statement underscores the responsibility of lawmakers to not only address accusations but to do so with a foundation of solid evidence that stands up to scrutiny. It raises the question of whether the charges against Gachagua are substantiated or merely the result of political rivalry and tribal biases.
The Broader Context of Tribalism
Senator Onyonka’s remarks also touch on a more extensive issue in Kenyan politics: the pervasive influence of tribalism. He indicated that the accusations against Gachagua, including claims of incitement and tribal favoritism, fail to recognize the broader systemic issues within the Kenyan government. According to Onyonka, the current administration, led by President William Ruto, has itself engaged in tribal favoritism, appointing individuals from specific ethnic groups to key government positions.
Onyonka said, “Isn’t that what the President has done in employing Permanent Secretaries? What Gachagua has done is not shocking. That is how we have been behaving.” His observations raise an essential discussion about the nature of governance in Kenya, where the distribution of power and resources is often influenced by ethnic considerations.
Dysfunctionality of the Political System
Further emphasizing the dysfunctionality within the Kenyan political system, Onyonka noted, “When we in the Senate are looking at this impeachment, we don’t see Gachagua as a failure, a tribalist; we see him as a consequence of this system which has become so dysfunctional.” His comments shed light on a critical perspective: that the issues plaguing the government are not merely individual failings but are symptomatic of a larger, systemic problem.
This perspective invites a more profound conversation about how political power is sought and maintained in Kenya. It raises questions about whether the impeachment process is an opportunity to address the underlying issues of governance or merely a continuation of the political battles that characterize Kenyan politics.
Legal Proceedings and Implications
As the Senate prepares to prosecute the impeachment motion, scheduled for Wednesday and Thursday as directed by Speaker Amason Kingi, the political stakes are high. Gachagua’s legal team is already active, seeking to block the Senate from proceeding with the impeachment. Chief Justice Martha Koome has appointed a three-judge bench, comprising Justices Eric Ogola, Anthony Mrima, and Freda Mugambi, to hear the petitions related to this matter.
The outcome of these legal proceedings will have significant implications for not only Gachagua but also the political landscape in Kenya. If the Senate finds sufficient evidence to uphold the impeachment, it could set a precedent for how future accusations against high-ranking officials are handled. Conversely, if Gachagua is acquitted, it may embolden those who believe that political accountability can be evaded.
Conclusion
Senator Richard Onyonka’s stance on the impeachment motion against Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua underscores the critical need for a careful and evidence-based approach in political proceedings. His emphasis on facts over hearsay highlights the importance of integrity in the legislative process. As the Senate gears up for what promises to be a contentious examination of Gachagua’s conduct, the broader implications of tribalism, systemic dysfunction, and accountability loom large in the backdrop of Kenyan politics.
Ultimately, the outcome of this impeachment process may reflect not just on Gachagua’s future but also on the values and practices of governance in Kenya as a whole. In a nation where political allegiances often shift with the tides of tribal loyalty, the call for a transparent and fair investigation is not just timely—it is essential for the future of democratic governance in Kenya.
