High Court refer five cases challenging DP Gachagua’s impeachment to CJ Koome
A High Court judge at the Milimani Law Courts has today referred five cases challenging the impeachment of Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua to Chief Justice Martha Koome, for appointment of a bench to determine issues raised in the petitions.
Justice Lawrence Mugambi agreed with Gachagua and other petitioners that the issues raised in the petitions are weighty and should be determined by a bench of three judges.
“It is my considered opinion that the issues raised are weighty constitutional questions, hence I am persuaded to refer them to the Chief Justice for empanelment of a bench.” The judge said.
According to the judge, the issue of public participation, which Gachagua claimed was inadequate, is a weighty one that should be heard by a three-judge bench.
Justice Mugambi said the impeachment of the deputy president was a matter of public interest, adding that it raised unique challenges including the limited duration of the impeachment process, adequate public participation and whether Parliament was properly constituted.
The DP through Senior Counsel Paul Muite had submitted that the court should pronounce itself on the question of public participation conducted by Parliament ahead of the vote to impeach Gachagua, arguing it did meet the required threshold.
Other than public participation, Muite has challenged the National Assembly’s standing orders, which provide only seven days to dispose of the matter and refer it to the Senate.
According to Mr Muite, the DP was not given sufficient time to respond to the issues, which were put to the public to form a basis for his ouster and in his view, he should have been given at least 12 days to prepare for his defence.
National Assembly opposed the application through lawyer Benson Millimo stating that it had already concluded its part of the process and presented its resolution to the Senate and if Gachagua has any issues with procedure, he has an opportunity to defend himself in the trial chamber.
He said the question of public participation was a concluded matter and the court has no jurisdiction to determine the same at this stage.
