Kibwezi West Member of Parliament (MP) Eckomas Mwengi Mutuse and mover of motion for the removal of the Deputy President of the Republic of Kenya Rigathi Gachagua through impeachment was today heavily subdued during the first day of Senate trial hearing by the DP’s legal team and even Senators questioned whether he is the initiator of the motion.
In a day-long session that extended until late into the night, a few minutes’ shy to midnight when the session was adjourned and set to resume tomorrow morning at 9am, dramatic scenes from legal teams representing the DP and Parliament played out amid intense engagements from both sides in putting forth their respective cases.
As Mutuse faced intense scrutiny from Gachagua’s legal team during cross-examination, Senators also lodged concerns over the impeachment motion against DP Gachagua questioning its legitimacy and the motivations behind it.
The impeachment trial, which saw dramatic exchanges, took a heated turn when the DP’s lawyers demanded that Mutuse substantiate his claims.
At some point, from the witness stand, Mutuse admitted that he neither had evidence nor could he substantiate any wrongdoing on the part of the majority of 25 companies he had listed as part of his eleven grounds justifying impeachment against the DP as having been used as conduits for money laundering.
One of the DP Gachagua’s defense counsels, Elisha Ongoya hard pressed Mutuse to justify the alleged Sh5.2billion wealth portifolio he attributed to DP Gachagua as having acquired during his two years’ period serving as the DP.
This figure is a key point in the 11 grounds of Gachagua’s impeachment.
Ongoya demanded to know how Mutuse arrived at this valuation, questioning the validity of the figures and suggesting that the MP lacked the expertise to make such assessments.
“Who gave you the value of Sh billion?” Ongoya posed.
In response, Mutuse responded that the figure was an estimate based on land and property values.
Ongoya further pressed him on his qualifications to make such valuations, sarcastically questioning whether Mutuse was acting as a lawyer or a property valuer.
The cross-examination became more tense when Mutuse was confronted with documents indicating that one of the properties central to the impeachment—Vipingo Beach Resort—was owned by the late James Nderitu Gachagua, the Deputy President’s brother, rather than Gachagua himself.
This led to accusations that the MP had misrepresented facts in his motion.
“Is the DP speaking the truth when he says his late brother owns Vipingo Beach Resort?” Ongoya asked.
Mutuse reluctantly admitted, “Yes.”
In addition to the property allegations, Mutuse was challenged to present evidence that Gachagua had used proxies to win a controversial Sh3.7billion mosquito net tender.
The motion alleges that the DP influenced Kenya Medical Supplies Authority (KEMSA) officials to award the tender to Crystal Ltd, a company involved in the bid bond controversy.
However, Mutuse struggled to provide definitive proof of this claim.
Another focal point in the impeachment trial was Gachagua’s controversial remarks comparing the country to a company with shareholders.
Mutuse had included this in his motion as an example of Gachagua’s misconduct, but was cornered when Ongoya referred to the Kenya Kwanza coalition agreement, which explicitly outlines the shares allocated to political parties within president William Ruto’s government.
The impeachment trial revolves around accusations that Gachagua has rapidly accumulated wealth, including high-value properties such as Outspan Hotel, Olive Gardens Hotel, and Treetops Hotel, among others.
Mutuse claimed these acquisitions were suspicious given the short time Gachagua has been in office.
Additionally, Mutuse alleged that Gachagua diverted public resources for personal benefit, including a road construction project redirected to his private property in Vipingo.
As the hearing progressed, Gachagua’s defence lawyers, Ndegwa Njiru, Ongoya and Tom Macharia, sought to discredit Mutuse’s claims, challenging the evidence presented and the validity of his allegations.
They questioned whether the accusations were grounded in fact or merely political manoeuvring.
The intense scrutiny from the legal team raised significant doubts about the motivations behind the impeachment motion, with several senators voicing concerns over the implications of such actions in a politically charged environment.
Kitui Senator Enoch Wambua emphasised that the Deputy President is required to serve all Kenyans, including those in the Mt. Kenya region, and questioned what could be impeachable about defending these constituents.
He asked whether the motion truly originated from MP Mwengi Mutuse or if he was merely a signatory.
“In the oath of office for the DP, it is required of him to diligently serve the people of Kenya in the office of the DP. The people that reside in the Mt Kenya region are Kenyans. What is so wrong with a DP, a state officer, defending people from a region in this country and then coming to defend other people in Nairobi and other people in other regions? What is so wrong? What is impeachable about that defence?” Wambua posed.
“Is this impeachment motion really and truly your motion? I ask that question because, on all accounts, the witness is unable to prove anything. Is this your motion, or were you called to just sign a motion, then to come and defend it here?” Wambua asked.
In response, Mutuse confirmed that the motion was indeed his own. He asserted that it is his constitutional duty as a Member of Parliament to oversee state officers, including the Deputy President.
He defended the validity of the grounds listed in the motion, arguing that while he had conceded on certain issues like the tea sector and the Mathira SACCO due to lack of evidence at the time of presentation, he had nonetheless provided substantial proof for most of the grounds outlined.
“I am just doing my work as a Member of Parliament under Articles 94 and 95 of the Constitution. Part of my work is to oversight state officers; the DP is one such state officer.” Mutuse responded.
Kiambu Senator Karungo Thang’wa also raised concerns regarding the sources of the evidence Mutuse presented, questioning how he had accessed various documents, including bank statements, without them being unlawfully obtained.
“You have given us a lot of documents, even bank statements and even payment vouchers. I know you are an MP and not necessarily a government agency; how did you access these documents yet you know the Supreme Court of Kenya has indicated it is wrong to steal evidence or to unlawfully obtain evidence?” He asked.
Mutuse responded by saying he just needed information to support his motion.
“I set myself to draft and present an impeachment motion, and I needed to support that impeachment motion with information, nothing else.” Mutuse said.
Further, Muranga Senator Joe Nyutu also sought clarity on the rationale behind auditing the Deputy President’s wealth, wondering why a similar approach was not taken towards the President.
In response, Mutuse said that: “I was not intending to bring impeachment against the President. If in the future another member wants to bring an impeachment motion against the President, I believe they will be at liberty to also do their work in the manner they deem.”
Nominated Senator Veronica Maina inquired about any existing money-laundering charges against the Deputy President and sought confirmation regarding a previous case with the Asset Recovery Agency (ARA).
Mutuse responded that he was not aware of any ongoing money-laundering proceedings involving Gachagua but noted that a ruling by Justice Esther Maina regarding the case remains valid.
So far, Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua has pleaded not guilty to all 11 charges levelled against him by the National Assembly.
Among them are breaches of the constitution, discriminatory public statements, and undermining the president, for which he pleaded not guilty.
In a historic first for Kenya, a deputy president is facing impeachment proceedings.
During the opening session, DP Gachagua’s legal team raised objection of involvement of Senior Counsel James Orengo who doubles as the Siaya governor as part of the legal team representing the Senate and the National Assembly.
However, Senate Speaker Amason Kingi overruled and dismissed the preliminary objection.
In his submission, Orengo, who led the National Assembly case before the plenary sitting of the Senate presented stinging allegations accusing DP Gachagua of “raiding” his late brother, former Nyeri governor Nderitu Gachagua bank accounts.
He said the DP visited his ailing brother at a London Hospital and made him to sign a will a few days before he died.
He further alleged that the fellow executors of the deceased’s will Njoroge Regeru and Mwai Mathenge had raised objections in the manner in which he was conducting himself as far as handling of his late brother’s properties was concerned.
“In February 2017, the Deputy President traveled to London and went to the bedside of his sick brother where he made him sign a will and did not even speak to his doctors, in fact by the time the former Governor died, he was already withdrawing money from his accounts.” Orengo submitted.
Counsel for the Deputy President Ongoya rebutted Orengo’s claims stating that the Deputy President needed to be treated with common decency.
Ongoya said the matter raised was meant to whip up Senators’ emotions as they discharge their constitutional mandate.
Speaker Kingi announced that the session would resume tomorrow 9am with Senators questioning two witnesses, followed by the prosecution’s remaining witnesses. The defence will then present its case, including testimony from Gachagua himself.