"LET ME LAUGH ABIT" GACHAGUA'S DOCTOR GIKONYO AS HE RESPOND TO CLAIMES GACHAGUA WAS HIDING.

追加: 2026-05-20

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

[00:00:13]I put it to you.

[00:00:15]Let me laugh a little bit first.

[00:00:18]>> [laughter] >> TRUST ME, I TOO have been LAUGHING ABOUT IT.

[00:00:25]OH.

[00:00:28]UH SIR, YOU ARE ON I I I I BEG YOUR PARDON. I BEG YOUR PARDON.

[00:00:32]I beg your pardon. LET US LAUGH.

[00:00:35]>> [laughter] >> I BEG YOUR PARDON. I BEG YOUR PARDON.

[00:00:40]>> [laughter] >> I BEG YOUR PARDON, your honor.

[00:00:44]But honestly, sir, if the question arises as to the those documents that have been raised, if they are available, and if we are looking for justice and honesty, you can ask me to provide them.

[00:00:59]And it takes 2 seconds.

[00:01:02]They are here.

[00:01:04]Yes, you may have them, but they are not on the record, sir. You can have them. Unfortunately, the law does not permit you to declare at this belated stage to even refer to them, because they should have been put on the affidavit.

[00:01:19]But to my summing up questions, your affidavit alludes to some media coverage Yes, your honor. of this alleged illness. Yes, your honor.

[00:01:34]Did you give yourself a press conference on this illness?

[00:01:40]Yes, your honor, on demand from the press.

[00:01:43]On demand from the press?

[00:01:45]>> Yes.

[00:01:47]Dr. Gikonyo, is it standard medical practice for doctors to give press conferences as to their patient's illness?

[00:01:54]It It on the sensitivity of the issue.

[00:01:57]>> sir is is it standard medical practice for doctors?

[00:02:03]Yes, when it's required.

[00:02:04]>> Call press conferences. No, sir. We don't call for press conferences. Okay.

[00:02:09]Press comes to us.

[00:02:11]When you are giving this press conference the kid before the Senate was proceeding.

[00:02:20]Correct or incorrect?

[00:02:22]Most likely so.

[00:02:25]You found time to give a press conference.

[00:02:30]But you didn't find time to go and tell the Senate. Oh, no.

[00:02:34]In what capacity would I go to the Senate?

[00:02:38]Good.

[00:02:46]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 a hospital. I'm not sure if access to the Senate is available to every common person like me.

[00:03:08]That's all from me. I will yield the floor to Mr. Mukele Melod to wrap up the cross examination.

[00:03:14]Honorable members there is a serious allegation in the form of a question raised by Dr. Thiang'ong'o that Dr. Gikonyo was hiding the first petitioner.

[00:03:36]That was posed and I'm not sure that Dr. Gikonyo was given the opportunity to respond.

[00:03:43]>> when you respond when you when you respond.

[00:03:48]Just for the record, the witness answered and he said his answer was to laugh.

[00:03:53]Well I think I think That's what we're supposed to deal with it. We'll deal with it, yes. Thank you.

[00:04:04]>> [clears throat] >> My lord Good morning, director. Good morning, sir.

[00:04:24]Uh my name is Muvomi. I think we know each other. Lovely. Nice to meet you in these circumstances. I will ask you a few questions I'll be pleased to answer.

[00:04:34]>> of the respondents Thank you, sir.

[00:04:38]and the second interested party who is the party I represent in this case.

[00:04:45]For the record, please confirm that your affidavit is dated the 28th of April the year 2026.

[00:04:56]>> That is correct, your honor.

[00:04:59]You will agree with me, sir this affidavit has been made 1 and 1/2 years after the events described in it.

[00:05:10]Correct or incorrect?

[00:05:12]Uh correct. It's correct.

[00:05:16]Was this affidavit placed before the Senate?

[00:05:22]I wouldn't be aware because it didn't exist at that time. This request has come now.

[00:05:28]The request has come now. Yes.

[00:05:31]You don't believe sir it is bizarre that a request of this nature in a case of this nature will be made 1 and 1/2 years down the line. Would you agree with me that's bizarre? It's not natural. Sir, I don't know the proceedings in court of those issues. Fair enough.

[00:05:48]This affidavit has attached some medical records, exhibit three.

[00:05:54]Correct or incorrect?

[00:05:58]Correct.

[00:06:02]That exhibit, was it placed before the Senate?

[00:06:06]I wouldn't be aware, sir.

[00:06:08]You are not aware.

[00:06:12]But you will confirm whichever date we take from the multiple dates on it.

[00:06:21]These are again events that this document was available about 1 and 1/2 years ago.

[00:06:29]By the date given this of 17th October, isn't it?

[00:06:35]I will 30th September.

[00:06:43]Yes, that's >> You you have to agree that this document was available Yes.

[00:06:48]You also have to agree that with due diligence this document would have been placed before this honorable court about 1 and 1/2 years ago through a letter.

[00:07:00]No opinion, sir. I don't have an opinion on that.

[00:07:02]>> fair enough.

[00:07:07]You have now attempted to explain a discrepancy between paragraph three of paragraph four of your affidavit.

[00:07:19]It talks of 3:00 p.m. That's correct.

[00:07:24]But exhibit three at the top right talks of 4:18 p.m. About an hour difference, yes, sir.

[00:07:32]You agree that's a discrepancy on its face?

[00:07:37]On its face, without more looking at it, is there or is there no discrepancy?

[00:07:42]None whatsoever, sir.

[00:07:44]Are you saying 4:18 p.m. is the same time as 3:00 p.m.?

[00:07:49]They are different times for different >> different times. Therefore, you agree with me, sir. But could the witness be given the opportunity to complete answer to his questions without being cut short.

[00:08:11]Dr. Gikonyo, is it your testimony that the time 3:00 p.m. given at paragraph four of your affidavit is the same time given as 4:18 p.m. in the medical record?

[00:08:27]They are different Good. They are different times. occurrences. They are not the same thing we are describing.

[00:08:33]Okay.

[00:08:34]This explanation you are now offering on the witness dock, is it given anywhere in your affidavit?

[00:08:43]The explanation for the discrepancy.

[00:08:46]Is it set out anywhere in your affidavit?

[00:08:50]It should be understood. No, the question is is it set out anywhere in your affidavit?

[00:08:58]That explanation you are now offering in court. Not there because >> It is not there.

[00:09:03]>> never raised.

[00:09:04]Had I known, I would have been I would have given an answer if it was raised.

[00:09:07]>> are here to raise it, unfortunately. I would have given an Uh let's keep to that page one of four.

[00:09:20]Dr. Gikonyo, 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? Depends on the purpose, sir.

[00:09:36]In my class, they call me DK.

[00:09:39]Does this document Does this document indicate the identity card of the patient being entered into?

[00:09:48]Does it indicate the identity card number?

[00:09:52]We >> National identity card number. Either it does or it does not.

[00:09:57]We have the client ID number in the bank.

[00:10:00]>> That's not my question, sir. My question is, on its face, does this document disclose the national identity card of the patient in this case?

[00:10:12]Deliberately not.

[00:10:14]Good.

[00:10:15]Does it indicate the travel passport number of the patient?

[00:10:21]>> Deliberately not. Good. Deliberately not. Yes. Very good answer.

[00:10:27]Does it give the patient's name?

[00:10:30]Deliberately not.

[00:10:33]Therefore, you have to agree with me, sir.

[00:10:36]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 ascertaining who is the patient described in that document. We do have We can ask the person who prepared it.

[00:11:00]No. The person on the dock is you.

[00:11:04]Does this document, on its face, sir, disclose the identity of the patient described there? Only by initials, RG.

[00:11:14]RG? Yes. Which could mean anything, isn't it? To other people, but not to me.

[00:11:21]>> [laughter] >> Fair enough.

[00:11:24]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. The liberty is so important to prepare when it was prepared, but now I can disclose. As if you ask me who it is, I'll tell you. RG RG could as well be Rob Gitau, right?

[00:11:47]>> Could be, but it is not.

[00:11:52]It could be Ruth Gitanga. It is not.

[00:11:55]Ask me who it is.

[00:11:56]>> this user? It can be anyone and anything. In this category, no.

[00:12:00]Okay, fair enough.

[00:12:01]>> You can ask me who is RG. And I tell you who is RG. The problem is we don't believe you. That's why these questions are being asked. You ask me, "Why did you write RG?"

[00:12:11]I'll explain. It is me who chooses, unfortunately, the questions to ask.

[00:12:17]So, let's go to that the the the the the title of the document is a medical summary.

[00:12:25]Correct?

[00:12:28]You have to agree there is a difference between the summary and the primary document.

[00:12:34]That is true.

[00:12:38]So, has the primary document been placed before this court?

[00:12:43]I don't know.

[00:12:45]Can you see it anywhere in your affidavit? You can take time to flip through.

[00:12:49]Not in my affidavit.

[00:12:50]It is not in your affidavit.

[00:12:55]You have to agree with me, therefore, in the absence of the primary document, an independent reader has no way of confirming whether this summary agrees with the primary document. We can ask the writer, who is in front of us here. No, on the documents that we are dealing with the documents. In the absence of the primary documents, would a third party have a way of confirming whether the summary is accurate?

[00:13:26]If that document was adequate in itself, I would not be here.

[00:13:32]I am here to answer questions pertaining to the the document to to say whether it's correct.

[00:13:37]If it was adequate in itself, you wouldn't call me here.

[00:13:42]We actually called you Dr. Ekonyo because the document has just too many gaps.

[00:13:47]For me, it's paragraph The paragraph of your affidavit that talks of the 48 hours to 72 hours.

[00:13:59]Correct. That's paragraph seven of your affidavit. Correct, sir.

[00:14:05]If that was true, it would mean this patient and we mean patient R.G. whose identity we don't know. Which I can confirm.

[00:14:15]It would mean that this patient would have been discharged on or before 20th October 2024.

[00:14:23]Correct or incorrect? Or am I to later?

[00:14:26]We are following the document, sir.

[00:14:29]Your paragraph says he was admitted for how long?

[00:14:34]48 to 72?

[00:14:38]Your paragraph seven.

[00:14:40]Sir, please read correctly. Recommended.

[00:14:49]And when does it say he was discharged?

[00:14:52]On the 20th. Of which month? Of October.

[00:14:56]Of October, good.

[00:14:58]And what is the discharge date given in the medical summary? November. November.

[00:15:04]That's actually that four days later.

[00:15:07]Correct. Correct? Yes.

[00:15:10]You have now attempted in your examining chief to explain the discrepancy. Not attempting. I did explain. Okay.

[00:15:18]Let's take it you have explained.

[00:15:22]You have explained while on the witness dock Yes, Your Honor.

[00:15:27]the discrepancy of 34 days, right?

[00:15:30]Yes, Your Honor.

[00:15:32]Is that explanation set out anywhere in your affidavit?

[00:15:37]The explanation you gave this court for that discrepancy.

[00:15:42]Yes, this is understood. I have explained >> No, my question is is the explanation you are now offering 1 and 1/2 years later Is it said Show me the paragraph of your affidavit that explains the discrepancy.

[00:15:55]It was not required.

[00:15:58]It was not required. But for the record, is it given in your affidavit, that explanation?

[00:16:05]Not given because not required.

[00:16:07]>> it's not given.

[00:16:12]This summary gives the consultants who are attending to the patient.

[00:16:22]Can you see that part of exhibit three?

[00:16:24]I do, yes.

[00:16:27]It begins with yourself.

[00:16:29]Who are the other doctors?

[00:16:32]Your Honor, if you allow me to explain You can look at it. I I know it by I haven't asked the question for you to explain. You can only answer questions I ask. I know the names on the list, but I can look at them.

[00:16:42]>> given there. Yes, I can look at them, but I know them. You know them. All of them, yes.

[00:16:48]In the maker of this document, one of the doctors who are indicated as attending to this patient No.

[00:16:58]No.

[00:17:02]Do you need that explained >> So, we don't have the primary document and we have a summary made by a person who did not attend to the patient.

[00:17:12]Uh not correct. Not correct.

[00:17:16]Is Dr. Sarita, just for the record, indicated as one of the doctors in this summary who are attending to this patient? She is not a consultant.

[00:17:27]My question is is she indicated as one of the doctors who are attending to the patient?

[00:17:38]On the list given at the top, is Dr. Sarita one of them?

[00:17:43]Uh your honor, I must explain what this list of consultants mean to the audience here. We are not interested in that. The question is is she indicated either she is and Dr. Were, quickly if you answer the question, the more we kick about the bush, unfortunately, the longer time will take. But I can't allow you, sir, proceed on a misunderstanding.

[00:18:04]Uh my lord, the witness has no >> Excuse me, Dr. Were. Yes. You came here to give evidence. You answer the questions as put to you by counsel Okay.

[00:18:13]without any any But if your honor is allowed just answer the questions as put to you. If you don't know, you say you don't know. Then we proceed.

[00:18:22]>> And that's how the law works, Dr. Gikonyo, just for the record. Thank you.

[00:18:25]I understand now.

[00:18:27]So, is Dr. Sarita indicated in this document >> Should you find that there's a need for clarification, >> Yes.

[00:18:33]Uh they will ask you to clarify. All right. Yes. Go on.

[00:18:37]So, Dr. Gikonyo, is Dr. Sarita, the maker of this summary, indicated as one of the physicians that were attending to the patient known as R.G.?

[00:18:51]On the face of it, is she indicated in the list of both doctors?

[00:18:57]Not as a consultant.

[00:18:59]Is she indicated in any other way? As a preparing as the one who prepared the document, yes.

[00:19:04]>> That's not my question. Just wait.

[00:19:07]Is she indicated as attending to the patient in any medical capacity.

[00:19:14]The maker of this document.

[00:19:17]The people taking care of the patient are not listed.

[00:19:23]I thought they are listed here, sir.

[00:19:25]About six of them. Those are the consultants. There are other doctors in the system. Mhm.

[00:19:31]>> [clears throat] >> Medical officers, intensive care doctors, and other people. And as I mentioned earlier, we are a 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.

[00:19:52]In fact, on the document before the court, we have no way of knowing who else other than the six given that attended to the patient. Only by asking the person on the dock. No, we are talking on the document, sir. Not on the document, sir. Good.

[00:20:08]Let's go to the bottom of that document.

[00:20:14]Bottom left.

[00:20:17]That document has a computer timestamp at the bottom left, correct?

[00:20:33]Bottom left. Below prepared by Dr. Sarita. That is right.

[00:20:39]20 2011 24 12:40 12:40 p.m. Yeah.

[00:20:45]So, what is the date and time of this document's preparation as per that timestamp?

[00:20:52]It is prepared on the 20th of November, 2024 at 12:40 p.m. Correct or incorrect?

[00:20:58]Right. That's correct.

[00:21:01]Now, let's go to the opposite side of the page, bottom right. Yeah.

[00:21:07]What is the date and time given?

[00:21:14]The date you confirm 20 November 24th 12:35 19. 12:35 You have to agree those are two different timestamps. Correct or incorrect?

[00:21:28]That's correct.

[00:21:31]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.

[00:21:44]I wouldn't understand why the computer would be like that. I would have to check on the computer data.

[00:21:48]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.

[00:22:04]It has two time limits.

[00:22:06]Which one do we take?

[00:22:12]I do not know.

[00:22:14]Good. You don't know.

[00:22:17]I want to add that it wouldn't matter.

[00:22:20]You have testified that this patient had a prior history. We go to page 204.

[00:22:28]Yes, your honor.

[00:22:32]And you have summarized it there. Yes, your honor.

[00:22:37]Have you placed before this court any primary documents to prove this alleged prior past medical history?

[00:22:46]Required is available. No, no. My question, sir.

[00:22:51]Have you placed before court any material to show that this patient had prior history of the conditions described there? None at all, but if you not at all. If required, your honor, it's available.

[00:23:06]It's available. I have it told me here today. Unfortunately, it's you testified on affidavit on oath, sir, that he has past history. So, you have to agree with me then in the absence of that material on the record, this is just an allegation.

[00:23:23]We have no way, based on your affidavit, to confirm that the patient described there this prior history.

[00:23:32]>> [clears throat] >> You have no way, but if you are interested in knowing, it can be provided.

[00:23:45]Uh doctor, you say you did a number of tests on this patient. Yes, your honor.

[00:23:51]Including an echocardiogram. Yes, your honor.

[00:23:55]2D.

[00:23:58]One is called 12-lead and the other one 2D, right? Yes.

[00:24:03]You must agree with me that that machine for echocardiogram generates a report and a graph. Correct or incorrect? Yes, it does. Yes, it does.

[00:24:17]Have you in this affidavit attached that graph that the machine generates to show that the patient has the conditions described in the summary?

[00:24:31]No, it's not available if required. No, no, not that My question is, have you attached to the affidavit the report that the echocardiogram machine generates?

[00:24:46]Definitely not. Good.

[00:24:48]Have you attached the report that the other machine automatically generates?

[00:24:56]Not attached, but exists.

[00:24:59]Fine.

[00:25:01]Have you attached the images that were supposedly taken of this patient?

[00:25:11]If I thought they'd be useful to this court, I would have attached them. I I thought it was necessary to attach them, but they are available if required. But you would agree with me that the images and the graphs and the reports would be the primary document evidencing the illness, correct or incorrect?

[00:25:32]Correct.

[00:25:34]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 had the conditions described in your affidavit. Unfortunately, I would not agree with you.

[00:25:58]Fair enough.

[00:26:01]You say you also took some blood tests. Yes, your honor.

[00:26:07]Have you attached the laboratory report of those blood tests to this affidavit?

[00:26:15]If you require it, we can. They are available.

[00:26:17]>> not my question.

[00:26:18]>> not They are not attached. Have you attached Deliberately not.

[00:26:22]>> report of the alleged blood tests?

[00:26:26]Deliberately not. Available if required.

[00:26:31]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 tests. I disagree. We have a way of knowing. You can ask me, I can produce them.

[00:26:53]Page three of four talks of hemoglobin, platelets, and blood chemistry, and other things.

[00:27:03]Correct or incorrect?

[00:27:13]Either it does or it doesn't, Dr. Are you It does.

[00:27:21]Do you have in your affidavit the primary document, that is the laboratory report >> [clears throat] >> for all these tests?

[00:27:31]Available if required.

[00:27:32]>> No, my question is, do we have it in your affidavit? Definitely not. They are not there. Definitely not. Yes.

[00:27:44]In page four of four, there is some information there about follow-ups.

[00:27:55]Have you produced before this court any document on that follow-up?

[00:28:02]Has not been requested.

[00:28:04]The question is, have you annexed it so No.

[00:28:11]You have not annexed it.

[00:28:14]So, again, I put it to you, there is no material before this court to confirm there was any follow-up.

[00:28:29]Dr. Gikonyo, in summary, you have admitted you have no material before court to show the prior history of the patient.

[00:28:41]You have confirmed there is no material before the court to evidence his medical condition when you supposedly attached that to him.

[00:28:54]And there is also now no material to follow up.