GACHAGUA'S DOCTOR, DR. DAN GIKONYO BETRAYS HIM IN COURT, ADMIT RUTO CALLED HIM TO SEE IF HE WAS SICK

追加: 2026-05-14

[00:00:03]Lord, good morning.

[00:00:05]Um, we were also served with the um the replying a fidavit to the doctor's uh uh vidavit uh one by uh Mr. Akindiki and the cler of the um um Senate uh and also being a petitioners in this proceedings lordship my um I'm seeking your guidance lordship as to the participation of other petitioners in so far as the affidavit by Mr. Keki and Mr. is an issue otherwise our quorum is as before my lord I don't understand the basis for the direction being sought from you because you already gave the direction when we were before you that any party who was who desires to cross-examine the witness now on the dock would want do two things First, they would file a reply to that affidavit. And number two, in that reply, they would intimate whether they wished to cross-examine the witness now on the dock.

[00:01:26]Uh, Mr. Andro cannot now purport to be ignorant of those directions, having not done what you directed should be done by anyone desiring to cross-examine this witness.

[00:01:41]Then he he can he can't come here and just tell you we seek direction on what other petitioners should do.

[00:02:16]You need to adjust this to suit you.

[00:02:31]>> Thank you for that. direction.

[00:02:37]I think we find >> Thank you my lord. We may proceed.

[00:03:17]evidence.

[00:03:26]Nothing.

[00:03:33]Please state your full name, profession and your professional qualifications.

[00:03:58]I'm a fellow of America.

[00:04:26]Okay.

[00:04:32]>> With with the permission of the court, perhaps you could place something under the microphone to just lift it up.

[00:04:58]Yes.

[00:04:59]>> Honor again.

[00:05:05]I am a doctor, a graduate of the University of 1975 years August.

[00:05:18]graduate medicine after fellow ofology and now a member of American College of Train the US 195 now practicing at the current hospital previously a lecturer.

[00:05:47]Thank you. Uh you have a document titled affidavit sworn on 28th April 2026 consisting of 12 numbered paragraphs. Do you recognize this document?

[00:06:04]>> Whose affidavit is it?

[00:06:07]>> Your honor is mine.

[00:06:10]>> Whose deponent signature is on page three or five of that affidavit?

[00:06:15]>> That mean your honor is Do you wish to adopt the contents therein as your evidence in this matter?

[00:06:29]>> Please tell the court whether you are acquainted with any party before these proceedings in a professional capacity.

[00:06:40]by >> okay whom I have taken care of my records your honors I do have I have been a doctor the same honorable by 5:10 p.m.

[00:07:11]on the 10th of July 2006.

[00:07:16]>> Okay. When and under what circumstances did you meet the first petitioner if at all during the period in issue and relevant to these proceedings?

[00:07:28]I believe for the purpose of the current hospital which again from my record at 3:25 p.m. on the 17th of October 2024 >> and what happened when you met him? What happened next?

[00:07:54]on the way with chest pain and acted accordingly.

[00:08:00]>> From your experience and expertise as a cardiologist, what signific significance do such symptoms have?

[00:08:08]>> Your honor, you know, when you see in that category. We look at the possibilities of what we call a manage with a very kind.

[00:08:42]I have listened to where the evidence is headed and in my very humble view we appear to be expanding the scope of the petition and the affidavit that is before you but it is important that we easily etc etc. to be able to respond to the questions that are being we have been speak >> my lord if I may respond if you I would refer the court to paragraph 5 of the affidavit basically the questions are formulated based on what uh the witness point to unless they specifically state exactly what is new. My Lord, we request that you do allow the witness to proceed uh with his testimony does not presume introducing new issues by way of evidence.

[00:10:08]It doesn't mean you introduce technical issues that we need to deal with. We'll have to respond to >> I think >> okay um you do have the affidavit with you.

[00:10:33]>> Okay. Please clarify what you meant under paragraph five of your affidavit.

[00:10:57]What do you ask that probability of it depends on the risk factor imply that That is a simple answer.

[00:11:29]>> And based on paragraph six of your affidavit, what role or steps did you take with respect to the first petitioner having been presented before you?

[00:11:48]presents that we follow that person addition of stress and stress has brought its I refer refer you to paragraph 7 of your affidavit.

[00:12:21]Please clarify what you meant in that affidavit on paragraph seven.

[00:12:48]What examinations did you conduct if any?

[00:12:54]your own physical examination of the circumstances.

[00:13:02]You proceed specific testing of the heartbeat of the heart.

[00:13:29]very indirect. could really be pointed to specific parts of both the epidemic and their attachments that then align with what the good my concern is what we by seeking clarification we then proceeding or extending beyond what is contained in this then leaves us in a very precarious position in terms of give us Can I clarify my lord beyond that contain the my lord if I may assist the court the issue being raised is we have a written affidavit which is sworn testimony ordinarily that would be the evidence in chief the second issue is that it is tright that where a being has been reduced to a document in this case the affidavit and their next choice there too. You cannot under the guise of cross rather examination in chief support to add to subtract from to contradict or vary. Even if these witness were to spend two days here offering these things now being called clarification it's just a waste of your time. Section 1991 of the evidence act says that evidence is inadmissible.

[00:15:08]>> I've been a very brief reply. The rule of objections as I know them is that you object to something objection irrelevant objection something. There's no specific objection. You're being told that the objections without a proper basis. We kindly request you to order that the examination in chief proceeds and concludes very shortly. The melanic friends would have their time to impeach and to do anything lawful. the witness and I think we must understand that we have expert.

[00:16:07]>> Thank you my lord. So what you are referring to was in paragraph six uh of the affidavit.

[00:16:31]Thank you. Uh please refer to paragraph 4 of your fidavit and an extra marked DKG3.

[00:16:43]An extra marked DKG3.

[00:16:49]Can you explain the timings reflected in those documents?

[00:17:04]Paragraph 4.

[00:17:07]Paragraph four >> of the affidavit which talks on when you approximately met the first uh petitioner.

[00:17:24]DKG on the day of admission by just now on the 17th October 2024.

[00:17:47]>> Now my lord now the witness is confirming why you hearing objections.

[00:17:51]The witness is referring to his handwritten notes which are not attached to the affidavit.

[00:18:00]>> Okay. Please refer to paragraph 4 of your affidavit.

[00:18:07]>> And an extra DKG3 that an extra is titled discharge summary.

[00:18:14]>> I think you should have some.

[00:18:17]>> Yeah.

[00:18:21]Yes.

[00:18:22]>> And their timings mentioned in paragraph 4avidit and their timings indicated in the discharge summary. Could you explain those timings?

[00:18:41]>> Yes.

[00:18:43]The day of this day is the time that I mentioned earlier at 4 18 p.m. I'll clarify that your honor admission.

[00:19:04]>> No my lord that's exactly what the law says.

[00:19:18]interpretation outside.

[00:19:22]>> No problem. Admission time 48 p.m.

[00:19:33]>> Okay. Under paragraph 4, there's a timing of 300 p.m. What transpired at that time?

[00:19:40]>> 3 p.m. is the time that the patient arrived in the hospital and was >> uh just a clarification.

[00:19:49]300 p.m. And there's the 4:18 p.m.

[00:19:56]>> Please clarify those.

[00:19:59]What happened at 3 p.m. What happened at 4:18 p.m.

[00:20:03]>> My lord, we still retain the objection.

[00:20:06]It is in black and white in the evidence act. If it is in the document, no amount of oral evidence from this witness can be admitted for purposes of adding to, subtracting from, clarifying or all these things is now according to him when he admitted it.

[00:20:29]>> Your honor, >> let me rephrase that. Uh, your honor and because the times you've read them out, when did you see the patient?

[00:20:39]What time did you see the patient?

[00:20:40]>> 3:25.

[00:20:45]>> As per paragraph four of your affidavit, what time did you see the patient?

[00:20:51]>> Approximately 3 p.m.

[00:20:52]>> Okay. What time was the patient admitted to hospital?

[00:20:58]>> At that time that I talked about >> which was on paper and you not allowed to verify because you That's why we here to explain to you and your honor.

[00:21:25]>> Yeah.

[00:21:27]Answer. Proceed.

[00:21:33]comes to hospital.

[00:21:36]That is not admission.

[00:21:38]Admission is when the payments are entered in the admission papers after all other factors taken care of. Who is your insurance? Who is paying and then the account that time?

[00:21:55]>> Okay. Thank you very much.

[00:22:01]>> Thank you. Thank you Dr. Now refer to paragraph 8.

[00:22:08]Paragraph 8 of your affidavit and the anexture again marked DKG3 which is the discharge.

[00:22:27]on the 20th of October 2024.

[00:22:31]>> Okay.

[00:22:33]>> On this error allows me explain why that is. So >> please explain. The answer is again discharge process in hospitals involve accounting.

[00:22:53]You must pay before you discharge and you have been discharged by the doctor and you got home and you're not paying your bill.

[00:23:04]We call it an opens and everything else.

[00:23:14]>> Thank you.

[00:23:16]refer to DKG3 the an extra which is a discharge summary at page four or four who prepared who wrote the discharge summary who wrote the discharge summary it's at page 404 I have define What we mean by writing because our hospital is a training institution consultant consultants and the summary on the But the consultant over there is correct.

[00:24:26]>> Okay. Thank you very much. Still on page four of four of DKG3 an extra which is the district summary.

[00:24:36]What did you mean by the followup that uh ongoing review? on ongoing review followup.

[00:24:57]>> There are issues that need to be followed up.

[00:25:01]We actually call patients at home and ask them how are you feeling? But more than that, we give you That means >> okay is an extra marked DKG3 to your affidavit true and accurate copy of the original discharge summary.

[00:25:33]>> I'll go to the last bit. During the period the first petitioner was under your care, what communication, if any, did you receive regarding his condition from anywhere?

[00:25:47]your honor. They always follow relatives and friendsify that I did from president of the patient.

[00:26:08]>> What did you communicate in response to that inquiry?

[00:26:13]>> For the first time, your honor, I just say that various tests and have a conclusion.

[00:26:24]>> Okay.

[00:26:25]Allow me to say this that when I say that I can't see clear of the patient that was so good.

[00:26:38]>> Okay. Very well. On my second last question, please refer to paragraph 10 of your fidavit.

[00:26:48]Paragraph 10 of your fidavit.

[00:26:52]and an extra DKG4 >> and tell this honorable court the relevance if any of their next in relation to your testimony.

[00:27:20]Uh this issues and public newspapers and services.

[00:27:42]>> Okay.

[00:27:44]Uh lastly, please refer to paragraph 11.

[00:27:49]paragraph 11 of your affidavit and in summary what you'd like this honorable court to understand regarding the first petitioner's admission and treatment and the honorable Thank you very much. That is all my lord.

[00:28:38]>> Good morning, Dr. >> Uh my name is Mi. think we know each other. Yes. Uh I will ask you a few questions on behalf of the respondents and the second interested party who is the party I represent in this case. For the record, please confirm that your affidavit is dated 28th of April, the year 2026.

[00:29:16]You will agree with me, sir.

[00:29:20]This affidavit has been made one and a half years after the events described in it.

[00:29:28]Correct or incorrect?

[00:29:30]Correct.

[00:29:31]>> It's correct. Was this affidavit placed before the Senate?

[00:29:44]>> Now, the request has come now.

[00:29:49]You don't believe, sir? It is bizarre that a request of this nature in a case of this nature will be made one and a half years down the line. Would you agree with me? That's bizarre. It's not natural, >> sir. I don't know the proceedings. Okay, fair enough.

[00:30:05]This affidavit has attached some medical records. Exhibit three.

[00:30:12]Correct or incorrect?

[00:30:15]>> Correct.

[00:30:20]That exhibit was it placed before the Senate?

[00:30:25]You are not aware but you will confirm whichever date we take from the multiple dates on it.

[00:30:38]These are again events that this document was available about one and a half years ago by the date given this of 17th October isn't it?

[00:31:01]You you have to agree this document was available.

[00:31:04]>> Yes.

[00:31:05]>> You also have to agree that with due diligence this document would have been placed before this honorable court about one and a half years ago. True or untrue?

[00:31:17]>> No opinion.

[00:31:18]>> No opinion. Fair enough.

[00:31:24]You have now attempted to explain a discrepancy between paragraph 3 of paragraph four of your it talks of 300 p.m.

[00:31:41]>> But exhibit three at the top right talks of 4:18 p.m.

[00:31:50]You agree that's a discrepancy on its face?

[00:31:55]On its face. Without more looking at it.

[00:31:57]Is there or is there no discrepancy?

[00:32:02]>> Are you saying 4:18 p.m. is the same time as 3 p.m.?

[00:32:07]>> Different times.

[00:32:08]>> They are different times. Therefore, you agree with me, sir. Lord, could the witness be given the opportunity to complete answers to his questions without being captured?

[00:32:29]Dr. Is it your testimony that the time 3:00 p.m. given at paragraph 4 of your is the same time given as 4:18 p.m. in the medical record?

[00:32:44]>> They are different.

[00:32:46]>> Good. They are different times.

[00:32:48]>> They not the same thing.

[00:32:51]>> Okay. This explanation you are now offering on the witness dock, is it given anywhere in your affidavit?

[00:33:01]The explanation for the discrepancy is it set out anywhere in your affidavit? It should be understood.

[00:33:09]>> No, the question is is it set out anywhere in your affidavit?

[00:33:15]That explanation you're now offering in court >> not there.

[00:33:19]>> It is not there. Good.

[00:33:20]>> Never given an answer.

[00:33:24]>> We are here to raise it unfortunately.

[00:33:27]Uh let's stick to that page 104.

[00:33:37]Dr. Gono, you have to agree with me that we identify individuals in Kenya by reference to their national identity card or passport number. Correct or incorrect?

[00:33:54]become.

[00:33:56]>> Does this document Does this document indicate the identity card of the patient being attended to?

[00:34:06]Does it indicate the identity card number?

[00:34:09]National identity card number. Either it does or it does not.

[00:34:14]>> We have the client ID number.

[00:34:17]>> That's not my question, sir. My question is on its face does this document disclose the national identity card of the patient it describes?

[00:34:30]>> Deliberately not.

[00:34:32]>> Good. Does it indicate the travel passport number of the patient?

[00:34:39]>> Deliberately not.

[00:34:40]>> Good. Deliberately not. Very good answer.

[00:34:44]Does it give the patient's name?

[00:34:48]deliver.

[00:34:50]>> Therefore, you have to agree with me, sir.

[00:34:54]A document that does not contain the patient's name, does not contain the patient's national identity card number, does not indicate the passport number. We have no way based on the document of assertaining who is the patient described in that document.

[00:35:16]Ask the person.

[00:35:18]>> No. The person on the dock is you. Does this document on its face sir disclose the identity of the patient described there?

[00:35:31]>> RG >> RG which could mean anything isn't it?

[00:35:37]>> Okay fair enough.

[00:35:42]I put it to you sir that you having brought this document to court you cannot run away from the fact that it doesn't disclose the identity of your patient >> okay >> RG could as well be rob >> it could be Ruth Ganga is I put it to you sir. It can be anyone and anything.

[00:36:18]>> Okay, fair enough.

[00:36:22]>> The problem doctor is we don't believe you. That's why these questions are being asked.

[00:36:30]>> It is me who chooses unfortunately the questions to ask. So let's go to that.

[00:36:37]the the the the the title of the document is a medical summary. Correct.

[00:36:46]>> You have to agree there is a difference between the summary and the primary document.

[00:36:56]So as the primary document been placed before this court, >> can you see it anywhere in your affidavit? You can take time to flip through.

[00:37:08]It is not in your field of view.

[00:37:12]You have to agree with me. Therefore, in the absence of the primary document, an independent read has no way of confirming whether this summary agrees with the primary document.

[00:37:30]>> No. on the documents. Sir, we are dealing with the document. In the absence of the primary document, would the third party have a way of confirming whether the summary is accurate?

[00:37:45]That document was adequate here.

[00:37:49]I am here to answer question.

[00:38:00]We actually called you Dr. Eono because the document has just too many gaps.

[00:38:04]Let's go to paragraph the paragraph of your fidelity that talks of the 48 hours to 72 hours.

[00:38:17]That's paragraph seven of your fidelity.

[00:38:23]If that were true, it would mean this patient and we mean patient RG whose identity we don't know.

[00:38:33]It would mean that this patient would have been discharged on or before 20th October 2024.

[00:38:41]Correct or incorrect?

[00:38:44]>> We are following a document. Sir, your paragraph says he was admitted for how long?

[00:38:52]48 to 72 your paragraph 7 correctly compared it.

[00:39:06]>> And when does it say he was discharged?

[00:39:10]>> On the 20th >> of which month?

[00:39:12]>> October.

[00:39:13]>> Of good. And what is the discharge date given in the medical summary? November >> November that's actually 34 days later >> correct >> correct >> yes >> you have now attempted in your exam in chief to explain the discrepancy >> not >> okay let's take it you have explained you have explained while on the witness dock the discrepancy of that four days right Yes.

[00:39:50]>> Is that explanation set out anywhere in your affidavit?

[00:39:54]The explanation you give this court for that discrepancy?

[00:40:01]>> No. My question is, is the explanation you are now offering one and a half years later? Is it said show me the paragraph of your affidavit that explains the discrepancy?

[00:40:12]>> It was not required.

[00:40:16]It was not required. But for the record, is it given in your affidavit? That explanation?

[00:40:24]>> Good. It's not given.

[00:40:30]This summary gives the patient.

[00:40:39]Can you see that part of exhibit three?

[00:40:41]>> I do. Yes.

[00:40:43]It begins with yourself.

[00:40:46]Who are the other doctors?

[00:40:51]>> You can look at it.

[00:40:53]>> I haven't asked the question for you to explain. You can only answer questions I ask.

[00:40:58]>> The names given there.

[00:40:59]>> Yes, I can look at them, but I know them.

[00:41:01]>> You know them. Good.

[00:41:05]Is the maker of this document one of the doctors who are indicated as attending to this patient?

[00:41:14]No.

[00:41:19]>> So we don't have the primary document and we have a summary made by a person who did not attend to the patient.

[00:41:29]>> Not correct.

[00:41:30]>> Not correct.

[00:41:33]Is Dr. Serita just for the record indicated as one of the doctors in this summary who are attending to this patient? is not a consultant.

[00:41:44]>> My question is is she indicated as one of the doctors who are attending to the patient from the list given at the top is one of them.

[00:42:00]>> Your honor, I must explain what to audience.

[00:42:04]>> We are not interested in that. The question is, is she educated? Either she is and Dr. W quickly if you answer the question. The more we kick about the bush, unfortunately, the longer time will take.

[00:42:17]>> But I can't allow you to proceed.

[00:42:21]Uh my lord, the witness has no question without any answer to you. If you don't know >> and that's how the law works, Dr. just for the record.

[00:42:43]>> So Dr. Sarita indicated in this document.

[00:42:46]>> You find that clarification So Dr. Gono is Dr. Cer the maker of this summary indicated as one of the physicians that were attending to the patient known as RG on the face of it. Is she indicated in the list of those doctors?

[00:43:14]>> Not as a consultant.

[00:43:16]>> Is she indicated in any other way?

[00:43:19]preparing.

[00:43:20]>> No, no, that's not my question. Just wait.

[00:43:24]Is she indicated as attending to the patient in any medical capacity?

[00:43:31]The maker of this document taking care of the patient are not listed.

[00:43:40]>> I thought they are listed here sir about six of them.

[00:43:43]>> These are the consultants. There are other doctors in the system.

[00:43:47]>> Mhm. medical intensity doctors and other people and as I mentioned earlier we are teaching hospital >> is there any material you have placed in your affidavit to show those other doctors and the fact that they were attending to the patient no >> good in fact on the document before the court we have no way of knowing who else other than the six given that are tenant to the patient No, we are talking on the document, sir.

[00:44:23]>> Good.

[00:44:25]Let's go to the bottom of that document.

[00:44:31]Bottom left.

[00:44:34]That document has a computer time stamp at the bottom left. Correct.

[00:44:50]bottom left below prepared by Dr. Serita 2011 24 12:40 >> 12:40 p.m.

[00:45:02]>> So what is the date and time of this document preparation as per that time stamp?

[00:45:09]It is prepared on the 20th of November 2024 at 12:40 p.m. Correct or incorrect?

[00:45:16]That's correct.

[00:45:17]>> Now let's go to the opposite side of the page bottom right.

[00:45:24]What is the date and time given?

[00:45:31]The date you confirm >> correct or incorrect?

[00:45:45]>> That's correct.

[00:45:47]You must agree sir that it is not possible for this document to have been prepared at two different times as it purports to say.

[00:46:05]Unfortunately sir, you have to agree with me that on the face of it, this is a discrepancy as to the time when this document was prepared.

[00:46:21]It has two timelines. Which one do we take?

[00:46:30]Good. You don't know.

[00:46:37]>> You have testified that this patient at the prior history. We go to page 204.

[00:46:45]>> Yes.

[00:46:48]And you have summarized it there.

[00:46:53]Have you placed before this court any primary documents to prove this alleged prior past medical history?

[00:47:05]>> No. No. My question sir, have you placed before court any material to show that this patient had prior history of the conditions described there?

[00:47:19]>> None at all.

[00:47:20]>> None at all. Good. your honor?

[00:47:22]>> None at all.

[00:47:23]>> It's available. I have it from you here today.

[00:47:26]>> Unfortunately, it's you who testified on affidavit or not, sir, that he has passed history. So, you have to agree with me then in the absence of that material on the record. This is just an allegation. We have no way based on your fidelity to confirm that the patient described there this prior history. You have no way but you know what can you provide doctor? You say you did a number of tests on this patient. Yes sir.

[00:48:08]>> Including an echo cardiogram 2D one is called 12 LED and the other on 2D. Right.

[00:48:20]You must agree with me that that machine for echo cardiogram generates a report and a graph. Correct or incorrect?

[00:48:30]Yes, it does.

[00:48:30]>> Yes, it does.

[00:48:34]Have you in this affidavit attached that graph that the machine generates to show that the patient has the conditions described in the summary?

[00:48:47]No, it's not.

[00:48:50]>> No, no, no. The my question is, have you attached to the affidavit the report that the echo cardiogram machine generates?

[00:49:02]>> Definitely not.

[00:49:04]>> Good.

[00:49:05]Have you attached the report that the other machine automatically generates?

[00:49:13]>> Not attached but exists. Fine.

[00:49:18]Have you attached the images that were supposedly taken of this patient?

[00:49:28]>> If I thought they would be used for this court, I would have >> fair enough.

[00:49:35]>> But you would agree with me that the images and the graphs and the reports would be the primary document evidencing the illness. Correct. incorrect.

[00:49:49]Correct.

[00:49:51]Therefore, if that is correct, you must agree with me that this summary in the absence of those images and those graphs and those reports cannot be the evidence that patient RG and the conditions described in your affidavity.

[00:50:11]>> Unfortunately, I would not agree with Fair enough.

[00:50:18]You say he also took some blood tests.

[00:50:22]Yes.

[00:50:23]>> Have you attached the laboratory report of those blood test to this affidavit?

[00:50:33]>> No. Doctor, my question is have you attached the laboratory report of the alleged blood tests? not available if required.

[00:50:47]>> So again based on your affidavit you have to agree we have no way of knowing whether there were blood tests or what were the results of any such blood test. I disagree. We have a way of knowing as producer.

[00:51:09]Page three or four talks of hemoglobin, platelets and blood chemistry and other things.

[00:51:19]Correct or incorrect?

[00:51:29]Either it does or it doesn't. Dr. >> It does.

[00:51:37]>> Do we have in your affidavit the primary document that is the laboratory report for all these tests >> available?

[00:51:49]>> No. My question is do we have it in your affidavit?

[00:51:54]>> Definitely not. Yes.

[00:52:00]In page 404 there is some information there about followups.

[00:52:12]Have you produced before this court any document on that followup >> has not been requested.

[00:52:20]>> The question is have you annexed it sir?

[00:52:26]No, >> you have not annexed it.

[00:52:31]So again, I put it to you. There is no material before this court to confirm there was any followup.

[00:52:45]Dr. Gono, in summary, you have admitted you have no material before court to show the prior history of the patient.

[00:52:57]You have confirmed there is no material before the court to evidence is medical condition when you supposedly atted to him and there is also now no material of the followup.

[00:53:18]Is it not because this gentleman was in your hospital to hide away from the Senate? He was not sick.

[00:53:31]I put it to you. Let me laugh a little bit.

[00:53:38]Trust me, I too have been laughing about this.

[00:54:02]But honestly sir, >> yes >> a question arises >> as to those documents that have been raised >> if they available and we are looking for justice and honesty >> you can ask me to provide And it takes 2 seconds. They are here.

[00:54:22]>> Yes, you may have there, but they are not on the record. Sir, >> you can have them.

[00:54:27]>> Unfortunately, the law does not permit you bacteria at this belated stage to even refer to them because they should have been put on the affidavit.

[00:54:37]But to my summing up questions, your affidavit alludes to some media coverage >> of his alleged illness.

[00:54:52]>> Did you give yourself a press conference on this illness?

[00:54:58]On demand from the press?

[00:55:01]>> On demand from the press?

[00:55:04]>> Dr. Is it standard medical practice for doctors to give press conferences as to their patients illness?

[00:55:14]>> No. The question sir is is it standard medical practice for doctors >> to call press conferences?

[00:55:24]>> No sir, we don't call for press conferences.

[00:55:27]>> Okay.

[00:55:27]>> Press comes to us. When you were giving this press conference, the case before the Senate was proceeding, correct or incorrect?

[00:55:40]>> Most likely. So, you found time to give a press conference, but you didn't find time to go and tell the Senate.

[00:55:52]>> Okay.

[00:55:56]Good.

[00:56:03]>> Wouldn't the Senate where the proceedings were going on, sir, have been the natural forum for you or any of your colleagues to go and tell Senate that the witness cannot come because he's been admitted in hospital?

[00:56:26]That's all from me. I'll yield the floor to Mr. Muel Melo to wrap up the cross exam.

[00:56:32]>> Well, there there's a serious allegation in the form of a question raised by Dr. Theonuru that Dr. GO was hiding the first petitioner that was posted and I'm not sure that Dr. Gono was given the opportunity to respond.

[00:57:05]>> Just for the record, the witness answered and he said his answer was to laugh.

[00:57:11]We we'll deal with it. We'll deal with it. Yes. Thank you.

[00:57:27]my way.

[00:58:07]Madam leadership uh senior council Dr. Kaku has covered quite a bit of ground. I will only have about three or four questions for the w this witness. I I I don't think I have much to add. Good morning Dr. My name is Edwin Mukle. I represent the third and fourth respondents. I've been permitted by senior council professor to ask one or two questions on behalf of the senate and the speaker. Now uh I had your last comment to be that you are not sure and this goes to Dr. Tangolu's very last statement. You're not sure whether you have access to the Senate. That's what I heard you say.

[00:58:54]Correct.

[00:59:03]Now, Dr. Gono presented before court is sworn on the 28th of April, 2026.

[00:59:14]>> That's correct.

[00:59:15]>> That's correct. Do you recall when the first petitioner was impeached?

[00:59:21]>> Not exactly, but I believe the same day that the same day that he came in to hospital.

[00:59:29]Would that be the 17th of October 2024?

[00:59:34]>> Most likely.

[00:59:35]>> Most likely.

[00:59:37]>> This is about We then receive you a fidelity in court about 1 and a half years >> after he has been impeached. That's all.

[00:59:52]>> Now going back to your evidence and I'll be very brief. Mot when asked a question on whether the documents you presented would have been presented to the Senate.

[01:00:08]Um your answer was the request has come.

[01:00:12]Now that is what I had you to answer to one of Dr.'s questions. Yes, >> the request has come now.

[01:00:19]>> So, so, so the request Dr. Dr. Gono to file the affidavit and the attached documents has come now.

[01:00:29]That is what you said. Yes.

[01:00:30]>> Yes, I Yes.

[01:00:34]>> From whom did you receive the request?

[01:00:37]>> From the petitioner.

[01:00:39]>> You received the request from the petitioner.

[01:00:41]>> Yes.

[01:00:46]Do you recall? Do you know when the petitioner first filed the petition? Might you know?

[01:01:00]>> You you you're giving evidence and you're not interested in the context of a petition in which you have no interest. Is that what you're telling the court? Yes, that appearing on a medical issue, not >> that is startling that I must say it means in my view you probably don't understand the reason you're here but I will go on uh you have also and this is my last question mine a very brief you have also confirmed that you do not know whether the affidavit and the documents attached were before the Senate. Do you have any information on that?

[01:01:42]>> Not at all.

[01:01:43]>> You don't have any information on that?

[01:01:47]>> I don't know why.

[01:02:00]So >> so Dr. Gono Dr. Gono um you cannot tell the court from what I understood whether the affidavit and the documents presented today sorry the the affidavit sworn by yourself on the 28th of April were before the Senate at the time of the impeachment proceedings. You can't >> you you only know that's okay. no interest in those matters.

[01:02:31]>> That's okay. That's okay. We understand that you do not know why you're here. Uh Malone, those have been my very brief questions on behalf of the Senate. Uh I beg to thank you Dr. Gono.

[01:02:54]>> My lord, we had Dr. to ask just two questions then the witness can be re-examined if you permit him please.

[01:03:03]>> My lord um there was no affidavit filed by Dr. um Kamoto and um you have given directions before the commencement of this proceedings.

[01:03:22]Yes, my loss my lady the we we have uh put our responses we we are doing a joint uh approach to this matter. We have a joint approach to this matter and that's why you'll find my my lord that not every one of us makes submissions or presentations on every occasion otherise Correct.

[01:04:03]>> It's okay.

[01:04:05]>> Very well. We are most of >> my lord. I'll proceed with the re-examination of Dr. Gono. Very quickly, Dr. Gono, I'll refer you to paragraph 11 of your affidavit >> on the reason why you filed the affidavit.

[01:04:35]Could you come clear or clarify why you saw this affidavit referring to paragraph 11?

[01:04:55]That summarizes why that I made this in my capacity as a medical expert, not a legal expert in other cardiologist to assist this honorable court in establishing that the first ad.

[01:05:20]That is what >> and you had earlier confirmed that the contents of your affidavit were true >> to the best of your knowledge.

[01:05:30]>> Thank you.

[01:05:31]>> Uh just to clarify a few issues that have propped up during crossexamination and I will go back to paragraph 4.

[01:05:39]Paragraph four of your affidavit and I'll be direct this time round because it pro uh cropped up. Is there any admission issues in paragraph 4?

[01:05:53]>> Not at all.

[01:05:54]>> Thank you. So at 300 p.m. on 17th of October 2024, what exactly happened >> at around 3 p.m.?

[01:06:07]>> Yes.

[01:06:11]>> What happened?

[01:06:15]>> Thank you.

[01:06:18]We started the normal thing that we do for taking at that time in the animation process.

[01:06:30]>> Thank you.

[01:06:31]is a process not an instant and >> those things are asking for this and when they are ready then they >> so when was he admitted >> according to our document 48 when the actual documentation of admission were completed details of timing and writing before that we still but not admitted because the accountants are not allowed to do that.

[01:07:13]>> Thank you. Um I'll refer you to page 104 of the discharge summary and on the top the patient name is Mr. RG. Who is RG?

[01:07:31]hospital names.

[01:07:38]There are clients we don't put names on record.

[01:07:44]>> My lord, we still object that evidence is extrinsic to the record. It is inadmissible and my good colleague knows that question is also impermissible.

[01:07:56]The question was actually raised in cross-examination and what we are seeking is a clarification >> on who RG is.

[01:08:20]Okay. But who is RG?

[01:08:23]>> Who who is RG?

[01:08:25]>> Okay. Is there any other identification information in that document? Have a look.

[01:08:32]Is there any other identification information with respect to that without necessarily reading it out?

[01:08:42]>> Thank you.

[01:08:54]Would you confirm whether there's any discrepancy between the affidavit and DKG3 the discharge summary?

[01:09:07]>> Thank you.

[01:09:09]And lastly is DKRG what what document is DKRG because there's been an allegation of a medical report.

[01:09:21]What is DKRG?

[01:09:24]>> It's a distant summary. It's not a medical report.

[01:09:29]Medical reportable and in your discharge summary you were confirming what you depon to in paragraph 11 on the purpose of the affidavit.

[01:09:47]>> Absolutely.

[01:09:48]>> Which is admission, discharge and treatment.

[01:09:50]>> Absolutely.

[01:09:51]>> Thank you. That's all.

[01:09:56]Just one very brief question Dr. Gono.

[01:10:00]It was put to you by Dr. Theonulu that you admitted the petitioner his excellency to hide him suggesting he wasn't sick and I think he responded by laughing.

[01:10:21]Now that you have finished laughing, will you please will you please answer the question? Was regarding Ashaba sick or not sick? Why are you hiding him in your hospital?

[01:10:38]Please answer. It is a serious question.

[01:10:42]>> I must say I thought it was not a serious question because person medical reports have traces of his echos everything you have data that available and available on demand by this court >> and apart from the documents Dr. You are here as a doctor who was treating him.

[01:11:18]>> Your honor, that's why you called me to answer those questions.

[01:11:21]>> That's all you was data provided.

[01:11:32]>> That's all my lord, your leadership for your information.

[01:11:36]>> Thank you.