Impeachment Proceedings Against Gachagua Continue as High Court Hearings Resume

The High Court will resume hearings on the impeachment case against Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua this morning at the Milimani Ceremonial Hall in Nairobi. The case, which has sparked widespread national interest, involves critical constitutional issues surrounding the impeachment process and parliamentary proceedings. Today’s session is expected to consolidate petitions brought before the court and address key concerns raised by petitioners, marking another crucial phase in the legal journey that could shape the future of Gachagua’s political career.

The hearing, presided over by a three-judge bench comprising Justices Eric Ogola, Anthony Mrima, and Dr. Freda Mugambi, is set to delve into the intricacies of the legal proceedings. This comes after a significant setback for Gachagua’s defense team on Wednesday when the High Court upheld Deputy Chief Justice Philomena Mwilu’s decision to constitute a three-judge bench to handle the impeachment case. The defense team had vehemently opposed Mwilu’s actions, arguing that she overstepped her constitutional mandate. However, the court dismissed the application with costs, ruling that the Deputy Chief Justice acted within her powers.

Legal Background and Arguments

The impeachment case against Gachagua revolves around allegations of misconduct and abuse of office during his tenure as Deputy President. While the specifics of the accusations remain under the purview of parliamentary and legal procedures, the defense has continuously challenged the legitimacy of the impeachment process. Central to the legal defense has been the argument that Deputy Chief Justice Mwilu lacked the constitutional authority to form the three-judge bench overseeing the case, as per Article 165(4) of the Constitution.

Gachagua’s legal team, led by seasoned lawyer Paul Muite, contended that only the Chief Justice has the mandate to constitute benches. According to Muite, the move by Mwilu violated constitutional provisions and administrative protocols, raising concerns about procedural fairness. The defense further argued that such decisions could undermine public trust in the judicial system if constitutional guidelines are not strictly followed.

However, the three-judge bench categorically rejected these claims. Justice Anthony Mrima, delivering the court’s opinion, emphasized that the Chief Justice’s role in assigning judges is primarily an administrative function. In instances where the Chief Justice is unavailable, the Deputy Chief Justice is empowered to perform such duties on their behalf. The bench ruled that the application challenging Mwilu’s decision “lacked merit,” and dismissed it with costs.

Significance of the Court’s Decision

This ruling is a significant moment in the broader impeachment saga, as it underscores the judiciary’s stance on the powers and responsibilities of judicial officers. The dismissal of the recusal application by Gachagua’s legal team suggests that the court will focus on the substantive issues of the case, rather than procedural disputes about the composition of the bench.

Justice Mrima’s clarification that the Chief Justice’s powers can be delegated to the Deputy Chief Justice in instances of absence or unavailability also sets an important precedent in Kenya’s legal landscape. In a judicial system that is often under scrutiny, the ruling reinforces the notion that administrative functions within the judiciary can be carried out efficiently by delegated officials without undermining the integrity of legal processes.

KEEP READING: The Fallout of Trust: Mithika Linturi's Warning to Deputy President Nominee Kithure Kindiki

For Gachagua, however, this ruling represents a significant setback in his attempts to challenge the impeachment process on procedural grounds. By upholding Mwilu’s decision, the court effectively removed one of the key legal challenges mounted by his defense team, allowing the case to proceed on its merits.

Recusal Application to Be Heard

In a separate but related development, the High Court is also expected to hear a recusal application this afternoon. The defense team has raised concerns about perceived bias in the handling of the case, which they argue could affect the fairness of the proceedings. It remains unclear whether the judges hearing the case will entertain the application or dismiss it outright, but this development adds another layer of complexity to an already high-stakes legal battle.

Observers are closely watching the recusal application, as it could have broader implications for the composition of the bench and the direction of the case. If successful, the application could lead to changes in the judicial panel, potentially delaying the proceedings further. However, legal experts suggest that such applications are often viewed with caution by the courts, and success is not guaranteed unless there is clear evidence of bias or impropriety.

Gachagua’s Defense and the Kerugoya File Controversy

Among the many legal arguments raised by Gachagua’s defense team, one issue has stood out for its political and legal intrigue: the so-called Kerugoya file controversy. During Wednesday’s proceedings, Paul Muite questioned the circumstances under which a file from Kerugoya, a town in Kenya’s Kirinyaga County, was transported to Nairobi on a Saturday for the Deputy Chief Justice’s appointment. The defense expressed concerns that this unusual move could suggest interference or undue influence in the judicial process.

While the court did not specifically address this issue during Wednesday’s ruling, it remains a point of contention for the defense. The Kerugoya file controversy is emblematic of the broader political and legal stakes in the case, with both sides seeking to leverage procedural details to their advantage. For Gachagua’s defense, the transportation of the file raises questions about transparency and fairness, while the state’s legal representatives have downplayed its significance.

State’s Response and the Road Ahead

Representing the state in the case, senior counsels Prof. Githu Muigai and Tom Ojienda have been unwavering in their defense of the judicial process. Both Muigai and Ojienda concurred with the court’s ruling on Wednesday, affirming that the Deputy Chief Justice acted within her constitutional mandate. Their arguments have centered on the need to respect the judiciary’s internal processes and avoid procedural delays that could hinder the resolution of the impeachment case.

KEEP READING: Kalonzo Musyoka Hails Gen Z as Kenya's Heroes, Calls for Accountability and Fairness in Leadership

However, Gachagua’s legal team remains determined to continue challenging the process. Paul Muite has indicated plans to appeal the court’s decision, signaling that the legal battle is far from over. An appeal would likely focus on the same constitutional issues raised during Wednesday’s hearing, as well as any new developments that arise during today’s proceedings.

As the hearings resume this morning, the political and legal landscape in Kenya is bracing for further developments. For Deputy President Gachagua, the stakes could not be higher. The outcome of the impeachment case will not only determine his political future but also set important precedents for how impeachment proceedings are handled in Kenya’s young constitutional democracy.

Conclusion

The impeachment case against Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua represents a defining moment in Kenyan politics and law. With the High Court hearings resuming today, all eyes are on the judiciary as it navigates the complex issues surrounding parliamentary procedures, constitutional mandates, and the balance of power between the executive and judicial branches. As the legal battle unfolds, it remains to be seen whether Gachagua’s defense team can overcome the setbacks they have faced thus far or whether the state’s case will prevail. Either way, the case is set to leave a lasting impact on Kenya’s legal and political landscape.