Audio By Vocalize
Parliament has defended the impeachment process that led to the removal of former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua from office in October 2024.
Appearing before a three-judge bench, lawyer Moses Kipkogei, representing the National Assembly, told the High Court that the proceedings were conducted within constitutional timelines and involved one of the most extensive public participation exercises in Kenya’s history.
He argued that the public participation exercise undertaken during the impeachment mirrored the civic engagement process that preceded the promulgation of the 2010 Constitution.
“Some 223,000 Kenyans submitted views physically in various offices, probably the most intense and elaborate public participation exercise ever undertaken in this country,” he submitted.
“I think it mirrors the one undertaken before the adoption of the Constitution. I think it is the only other public participation session that rivals the adoption of the new Constitution.
The submissions were made in response to claims by Gachagua’s legal team that the impeachment proceedings were rushed and lacked meaningful public participation.
Gachagua, who became the first Deputy President in Kenya’s history to be impeached, is challenging both the National Assembly and Senate resolutions that upheld his removal from office.
The impeachment process began in October 2024 after a motion sponsored by Kibwezi West MP Mwengi Mutuse accused Gachagua of gross misconduct, abuse of office, and violations of the Constitution.
The National Assembly voted overwhelmingly to approve the motion before the matter proceeded to the Senate, which later upheld the charges and removed him from office.
Kipkogei told the court that impeachment proceedings are constitutionally time-bound and should be assessed within the framework provided under Article 145 of the Constitution.
“Impeachment was time-bound. Public participation in respect to impeachment must be taken within the context of time available to whichever organ of the legislative assemblies is dealing with the matter,” he argued.
According to court submissions, notices inviting public views were published in English and Kiswahili newspapers between October 2 and October 4, 2024, and disseminated through television, radio stations, Parliament’s website, and social media platforms including Facebook, X, and Instagram.
Parliament also organised public hearings in county headquarters across the country where citizens physically submitted their views using structured templates.
“There were public hearings initially held at every county headquarters where members of the public were invited to engage staff of the National Assembly and submit their views,” Kipkogei submitted.
Additional hearings were held on October 4 and 5, while a dedicated email address was established for Kenyans unable to attend physical forums.
The respondents maintained that the views collected informed Members of Parliament before the vote on the impeachment motion.
“At the end of the day, all the views were for the benefit of Members of Parliament,” the court heard.
Lawyers representing Parliament further dismissed claims that Gachagua was denied a fair hearing.
Senior Counsel Tom Ojienda told the bench that the former Deputy President had adequate time to prepare his defence after the charges were read on October 9, before the Senate hearings on October 16 and 17.
“As we submit, my lord, the petitioner was afforded every opportunity and was substantively heard by the Senate before it arrived at the decision to impeach,” Ojienda argued.
The court heard that Gachagua appeared before Parliament accompanied by a team of 14 lawyers who actively participated in the proceedings.
Parliament’s legal team also defended the pace of the impeachment process, insisting that constitutional timelines were mandatory and not optional political choices.
“The question of timely and expeditious determination of an impeachment motion is a dictate of the Constitution, not a whimsical escapade,” counsel submitted.
Gachagua’s lawyers, however, continue to argue that the process violated constitutional provisions on fair hearing, public participation, and due process.
The matter is being heard by Justices Erick Ogolla, Anthony Mrima, and Freda Mugambi, who are expected to issue directions on the substantive petition.
Support Independent Journalism
Stand With Bold Journalism.
Stand With The Standard.
Continue
→
Pay via
Secure Payment
Kenya’s most trusted newsroom since 1902
Follow The Standard on
Parliament has defended the
impeachment process
that led to the removal of former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua from office in October 2024.
Appearing before a three-judge bench, lawyer Moses Kipkogei, representing the National Assembly, told the High Court that the proceedings were conducted within constitutional timelines and involved one of the most extensive public participation exercises in Kenya’s history.
He argued that the public participation exercise undertaken during the impeachment mirrored the civic engagement process that preceded the promulgation of the 2010 Constitution.
“Some 223,000 Kenyans submitted views physically in various offices, probably the most intense and elaborate public participation exercise ever undertaken in this country,” he submitted.
“I think it mirrors the one undertaken before the adoption of the Constitution. I think it is the only other public participation session that rivals the adoption of the new Constitution.
The submissions were made in response to claims by Gachagua’s legal team that the
impeachment proceedings
were rushed and lacked meaningful public participation.
Gachagua, who became the first Deputy President in Kenya’s history to be impeached, is challenging both the National Assembly and Senate resolutions that upheld his removal from office.
The impeachment process began in October 2024 after a motion sponsored by Kibwezi West MP Mwengi Mutuse accused Gachagua of gross misconduct, abuse of office, and violations of the Constitution.
The National Assembly voted overwhelmingly to approve the motion before the matter proceeded to the Senate, which later upheld the charges and removed him from office.
Kipkogei told the court that impeachment proceedings are constitutionally time-bound and should be assessed within the framework provided under Article 145 of the Constitution.
“Impeachment was time-bound. Public participation in respect to impeachment must be taken within the context of time available to whichever organ of the legislative assemblies is dealing with the matter,” he argued.
According to court submissions, notices inviting public views were published in English and Kiswahili newspapers between October 2 and October 4, 2024, and disseminated through television, radio stations, Parliament’s website, and social media platforms including Facebook, X, and Instagram.
Parliament also organised public hearings in county headquarters across the country where citizens physically submitted their views using structured templates.
“There were public hearings initially held at every county headquarters where members of the public were invited to engage staff of the National Assembly and submit their views,” Kipkogei submitted.
Stay informed. Subscribe to our newsletter
Additional hearings were held on October 4 and 5, while a dedicated email address was established for Kenyans unable to attend physical forums.
The respondents maintained that the views collected informed Members of Parliament before the vote on the impeachment motion.
“At the end of the day, all the views were for the benefit of Members of Parliament,” the court heard.
Lawyers representing Parliament further dismissed claims that Gachagua was denied a fair hearing.
Senior Counsel Tom Ojienda told the bench that the former Deputy President had adequate time to prepare his defence after the charges were read on October 9, before the Senate hearings on October 16 and 17.
“As we submit, my lord, the petitioner was afforded every opportunity and was substantively heard by the Senate before it arrived at the decision to impeach,” Ojienda argued.
The court heard that Gachagua appeared before Parliament accompanied by a team of 14 lawyers who actively participated in the proceedings.
Parliament’s legal team also defended the pace of the impeachment process, insisting that constitutional timelines were mandatory and not optional political choices.
“The question of timely and expeditious determination of an impeachment motion is a dictate of the Constitution, not a whimsical escapade,” counsel submitted.
Gachagua’s lawyers, however, continue to argue that the process violated constitutional provisions on fair hearing, public participation, and due process.
The matter is being heard by Justices Erick Ogolla, Anthony Mrima, and Freda Mugambi, who are expected to issue directions on the substantive petition.
By Mike Kihaki