TENSION! GACHAGUA APPEARS IN COURT FOR HIS FINAL IMPEACHMENT CASE HEARING!!

Added: 2026-06-10

[00:00:00]apprehend bias and that senators acknowledged imperfections in the case but still voted to impeach which demonstrated bias.

[00:00:11]They asked the court to address the impeachment process as a whole not in fragments noting that the petitioners have demonstrated cumulative defects including failure to apply the modification rule under 152, absence of impartiality and presence of bias, reliance on irrelevant and extraneous considerations, violations of fair hearing rights, misconstruction of the constitutional and procedural framework and breach of standing order 75, 78 and 80.

[00:00:47]They submitted that individually each defect is serious and collectively they reveal a process that is constitutionally unsound from inception to conclusion. That article 1653D Roman II vests the High Court with jurisdiction to determine whether anything done under constitutional authority is inconsistent with or in contravention of the constitution.

[00:01:16]They contended that this court is not being invited to interfere with parliamentary politics but is being invited to perform its core constitutional function as guardian of legality and fundamental rights and where parliament acts within constitutional bounds the court defers but where it acts outside those bounds the court must intervene not as an intruder but as a constitutional necessity.

[00:01:49]As such the petitioners asked the court to find that impeachment was not a measure of last resort when ordinary legal mechanisms were available and bypassed, that the Senate failed to apply the mandatory modification rule under Article 152, rendering the process unconstitutional ab initio, that the refusal to adjourn during illness violated Articles 50, 26, 28, and 48, that the proceedings were infected with bias and irrelevant considerations, and that the cumulative defects render the impeachment null, void, and of no legal effect. They then prayed that their petition be allowed in entirety.

[00:02:40]>> I will then take over uh from the 51st petitioner's case.

[00:02:46]Caroline Wanjiku Mwangangi, the 51st petitioner, in the consolidated petitions filed the petition dated 26th of September, 2024, before the High Court of Kenya at Milimani, as a public-spirited Kenyan citizen and a defender of the Constitution, Ms. Mwangangi contended that impeached that the impeachment process was unconstitutional, unlawful, and politically motivated. She relied on public state- statements allegedly made by Honorable Didmus Barasa and Honorable Gladys Boss Shollei in September, 2024, indicating that the impeachment of H.E. Gachagua had already been predetermined and further referred to a motion by Honorable Danson Mungatana expressing displeasure with the conduct of His Excellency Gachagua.

[00:03:40]Ms. Mwangangi asserted that the allegations leveled against his his H.E.

[00:03:48]Gachagua were vague, unsupported by evidence, and lacking in specificity and peculiarity contrary to the constitutional requirements of fair hearing and due process under articles 47 and 50 of the Constitution. She further alleged that the intended impeachment process amounted to a political witch hunt designed to settle political scores rather than a lawful constitutional process and contended that the respondents had violated the national values and principles under article 10 including the rule of law, transparency, accountability, equality and protection of human rights. She maintained that his Excellency Gachagua had not been accorded adequate notice of the charges against him, sufficient particulars of the allegations, nor an opportunity to adduce and challenge evidence in violation of articles 25c, 35, 47 and 50 of the Constitution. As such, she sought for the following orders: A, a declaration that within the purview of articles 25c, 35, 47 and 50 of the Constitution of Kenya, a person facing impeachment pro- proceedings under article 150 is entitled to be informed substantially with with peculiarity and specificity and supported with evidence the grounds of impeachment before the commencement of the impeachment proceedings by the National Assembly and Senate. B, conservatory orders do issue against the respondents restraining them from collection of signatures in support of a motion to impeach his Excellency Rigathi Gachagua, lodging any motion and or carrying on proceedings seeking to impeach the Deputy President of the Republic of Kenya, the interested party herein. C, an order of compensation enshrined and provided for under article 23e of the Constitution of Kenya made up of damages as shall be assessed and quantified by the petitioner, general damages, cost of the petition and any other relief. The 51st petitioner neither filed any written submission nor attended the physical highlighting of submissions.

[00:05:56]In respect to the 54th petitioner's case, uh Emmanuel Elijah Otieno was the uh 54th petitioner in the consolidated petitions.

[00:06:07]He is an advocate of the High Court of Kenya who filed the petition dated 18th of October 2024 together with a supporting affidavit also challenging the constitutionality and legality of the impeachment and removal uh from office of His Excellency Gachagua as Deputy President. He stated that instituted proceedings in the public interest pursuant to Articles 3 and 258 of the Constitution and contended that impeachment process undertaken by the National Assembly and the Senate was procedurally unfair, politically motivated, and unconstitutional, and inconsistent with the constitutional principles governing impeachment under Articles 145 and 50 of the Constitution. He maintained that impeachment was a constitutional mechanism intended to promote accountability and good governance and not a tool for settling political disputes or managing political differences among leaders. He challenged the legality of public participation process and the fairness of the proceedings before the National Assembly and the Senate and the substantive threshold applied in removing His Excellency Gachagua from office. He contended that the National Assembly failed to conduct meaningful and constitutional compliant public participation as required under Articles 10 and 118 of the Constitution and Section 5 of the Fair Administrative Actions Act. Mr. Otieno stated that the public participation exercise was marred, uh was hurried, inadequate, uh both quantitatively and qualitatively, and incapable of reflecting the sovereign will of the electorate given that only about 223,000 persons participated despite his Excellence Gachagua having been elected together with His Excellence President Ruto by over 7 million voters. He further asserted that the public participation template prepared the National Assembly was biased because it only contained the allegations against His Excellence Gachagua and failed to include his responses, thereby portraying him to the public as guilt before he had been heard. Mr. Otiendo additionally stated that the speaker, deputy speaker, and members of National Assembly demonstrated bias from the outset, failed to accord His Excellence Gachagua a fair hearing, and debated the impeachment motion before proper public participation and before considering His Excellence Gachagua's defense. He maintained that no impeachable offense meeting the constitutional threshold of gross violation, gross misconduct, or commission of crimes under national international law had been substantiated either before the National Assembly or the Senate.

[00:08:48]He further challenged the Senate proceedings contending that the Senate violated His Excellence Gachagua's right to a fair hearing by providing proceeding with the impeachment despite his illness and hospitalization and by failing to adjourn the proceedings to allow him an opportunity to personally testify. He therefore alleged violations of Articles 25C, 47, and 50 of the Constitution relating to the right of fair hearing and fair administrative action. He sought the following prayers: A, a declaration be and is hereby issued that the public participation uh organized and conducted by the first respondent did not meet the requirements of Article of the Constitution quantitatively and qualitatively. B, a declaration be and is hereby issued that the first respondent violated the seventh respondent's right to a fair administrative action under Article 47 of the Constitution and Section 4 of the Fair Administrative Actions Act. C, a declaration be and is hereby issued that the first respondent violated the right of the seventh respondent under Article 50 sub-article 1 of the Constitution 2010. D, a declaration be and is hereby issued that the resolution of the first respondent to impeach the seventh respondent was invalid and null and void. And E, respondents shall bear the cost of the petition. Likewise, the 54th petitioner neither filed any submissions nor filed uh nor attended the physical highlighting of the submissions. Next is consideration of the 55th and 56th petitioners' case.

[00:10:23]Stephen Mbugua Wanjiru and Gladys Nyambura Gituba jointly filed a petition dated 20th of October 2024 uh together with the supporting affidavits They stated that they were public interest litiga- litigants and defenders of constitutionalism. They challenged the legality, constitutionality, and procedural propriety of the impeachment proceedings undertaken against His Excellency Gachagua as Deputy President of the Republic of Kenya as well as the subsequent nomination approval process relating to His Excellency Kindiki as the Deputy President nominee. The petitioners contended that the impeachment process before both National Assembly and the Senate were marred by procedural irregularities, bias, denial of fair hearing, and unconstitutional conduct.

[00:11:13]That the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker of the National Assembly had publicly pronounced themselves in favor of the impeachment before presiding over the proceedings, thereby violating the constitutional principles of impartiality, neutrality, and natural justice. The petitioners further challenged the adequacy and constitutionality of the public participation exercise conducted on the 4th and 5th of October 2024 asserting that the notice period was too short to permit meaningful participation that the questionnaires used by the National Assembly only presented the accusations against His Excellency Gachagua without his responses and that the Parliament failed to avail documentary and electronic evidence to the public to facilitate informed participation.

[00:11:55]He further asserted that the Senate uh proceedings contending uh he further challenged the Senate proceedings contending that the Senate violated His Excellency Gachagua's right to a fair hearing by proceeding with the impeachment despite his illness and hospitalization and that by failing to adjourn the proceedings to allow him an opportunity to personally testify. He therefore alleged that Sorry.

[00:12:24]Sorry.

[00:12:27]Sorry.

[00:12:30]Sorry, I had repeated that bit, but I'll proceed from uh paragraph 133.

[00:12:40]They additionally alleged that public participation process was chaotic, disorderly, and marked by violence and characterized by low turnout in several constituencies and undertaken on days when many Kenyans were engaged in religious worship thereby undermining uh undermining the constitutional threshold for meaningful participation under articles 10 and 118 of the Constitution. The petitioners also challenged the conduct of the Senate proceedings. They contended that the Senate acted in violation of articles 25C, 47, and 50 of the Constitution by refusing to adjourn the impeachment hearing despite His Excellency Gachagua's illness and hospitalization and thereby denying him an adequate opportunity to personally defend himself. Further, the petitioners alleged bias and conflict of interest arising from Patrice operation of Governor James Orengo, senior counsel, and Honorable Otieno Omolo, senior counsel, in the Senate proceedings, stating that their roles compromise the fairness and impartiality of the impeachment process. The petitioners maintained that the impeachment proceedings before both houses of Parliament were characterized by constitutional violations, procedural inconsistencies, and disregard for due process. The petitioners also challenged the subsequent nomination and approval of Honor of His Excellency Kindiki as Deputy President, contending that the nomination was tainted by by the same constitutional and procedural violations that affected the impeachment uh process and was therefore null and void.

[00:14:11]As such, uh it sought the following prayers: A declaration that the grounds of impeachment laid out laid in the special motion dated uh 24th of September, 2024, did not meet the constitutional and legal threshold for uh impeachment of a Deputy President.

[00:14:33]That a declaration uh do issue that public participation exercise conducted on the 4th and 5th of October was flawed and incapable of meeting the constitutional standards required for such processes, and the outcomes of this flawed participation do not reflect the will of the people and cannot be considered a legitimate basis for advancing the impeachment motion. C, a declaration that the impeachment process the impeachment process uh against the Deputy President initiated by the National Assembly and subsequently conducted by the Senate was tainted by substantive and procedural constitutional violations, rendering unconstitutional, illegal, null, and void.

[00:15:20]D, an order nullifying the impeachment of the Deputy President as impeachment of the Deputy President as