With Parliament poised to debate the impeachment motion against Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua on Tuesday, the DP chose to take a bold stand and fight the process in the corridors of justice.
So far, over ten cases have been filed in different courts challenging the process citing lack of meaningful public participation among other fundamental breaches.
There has been no relief yet on any of the applications as the courts only prioritised setting hearing dates for the cases filed against the impeachment motion itself.
It is only Kerugoya law courts that directed the National Assembly to organise other similar public hearings to citizens at constituency level like the one set aside on October 4.
The clerk of the National Assembly published a public participation notice on October 2, inviting the public to make oral or written submissions regarding the motion to impeach the DP.
The clerk published a form, identified as a “public views template”, for participants to fill during the said public participation exercise.
Gachagua has taken issue with the notice and form saying they both violated the constitutional requirement for public participation.
This, he said, has violated his constitutional right to a fair hearing and fair administrative action in that “the entire nation has been given one days’ notice for the exercise which clearly violates the guiding principles for public participation established by the Supreme Court”.
The Apex court has since said that public participation must be meaningful, genuine and accompanied by a reasonable notice.
But Gachagua said the physical public participation forums are scheduled to be held at one location per
county which, on account of prohibitive travel expenses and geographical distance, will shut out the vast majority of Kenyans who are entitled to participate in the critical process being undertaken for the first time in Kenya’s history.
The same, he said, will affect the sovereign rights of the 14.1 million Kenyans who participated in the 2022 presidential election in which he was elected Deputy President by 7,176,141 Kenyans.
He asked the court to declare that the one day is not sufficient and that such public participation must be undertaken in all the 290 electoral constituencies in Kenya, the Diaspora constituency and 1,450 electoral wards where the presidential election took place.
Also sought is an order prohibiting the National Assembly from processing, passing and transmitting to the Senate any resolution founded on the notice of motion dated September, 26.
“Any exercise of public participation to alter the sovereign will of the 7,176,141 Kenyans who elected me should thus be held at the 290 constituencies and the Diaspora constituency at which the sovereign will of the people in a presidential election was exercised,” he said.
The clerk of the National Assembly has framed the public participation form for attendees of the forums to tick boxes, much like a vote of no confidence, with only the accusations available as a choice to inform the public’s decision.
Gachagua explains that the form has no way of verifying the true identity or even real existence of the participants since it has no requirement for participants to fill in any form of identification verification documents.
The proceedings have revealed a profound crack in the democratic system that is a lack of meaningful public participation which has left people disillusioned, the DP argued through his counsel.
Gachagua has termed the impeachment as a politically motivated attack by his enemies, dismissing it as a no attempt at genuine accountability.
The DP is no stranger to public scrutiny, but the allegations of corruption and gross misconduct have now reached a critical point.
They are some of the grounds isolated by the mover of the motion, Mwingi West MP, Mwengi Mutuse, to support the impeachment process.
Mutuse has accused Gachagua of corruptly acquiring assets valued at over Sh5.2 billion, an amount that is inconsistent with his monthly salary as the DP of about Sh1 million.
But the DP, through Swanya and Company Advocates, said no valuation report(s) have been attached with respect to any of the properties listed to show the worth of the said properties.
“In the circumstances, it is not clear to the petitioner how he is expected to respond to this weighty, unfounded but very sensational allegation,” the DP’s legal team said.
Gachagua explained that the mover of the motion has listed some 22 legal entities owned by or associated with him without any indication as to what offence(s) the companies have committed if any.
Some of the entities are Rigathi Gachagua Foundation, Dorcas Rigathi Foundation, Heartland Supplies Limited, Karandi Farm Limited, Morani Manufacturers Limited, Mothers of the Land Limited, Pioneer Medical (K) Limited, Ridor Furniture Mart Limited, Wamunyoro Investments Limited, Vipingo Beach Resort Limited among others.
“They have falsely and sensationally alleged that I have amassed a humongous property portfolio estimated at Sh5.2 billion so as to unlawfully harm my reputation and standing with the public and my family,” he said.
Gachagua explained that if a search at government registries was conducted, the mover of the motion would find that Outspan Hotel (one of his properties) was purchased through a bank loan.
Treetop, he says, is an assignment of lease from a private entity which was the previous tenant. He goes on to state that he doesn’t own Oliver Gardens or Queen’s Gate serviced apartments as alleged.
“These properties belonged to my late brother, Nderitu Gachagua, who appointed me as co executor of his will,” he said.
Gachagua has also denied owning Vipingo Resort.
by SUSAN MUHINDI
