Janice R. Andrews
The legal representatives of impeached Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua have voiced serious concerns regarding the handling of his impeachment petition. They’ve accused the judiciary of bias and procedural irregularities, casting doubt on the fairness of the upcoming trial.
Unexpected Court Decisions
Gachagua’s lawyers have questioned a ruling made on Saturday, October 19, by a three-judge bench consisting of Justice Ogola, Justice Mrima, and Lady Justice Mugambi. The legal team claims this decision was made outside normal working hours without their knowledge.
Key points of contention include:
- The bench was not originally assigned to Gachagua’s case.
- The lawyers were previously told no court dates were available until October 29.
- A sudden hearing was scheduled for Tuesday, October 22, without prior notification.
John Njomo, representing Gachagua, expressed frustration over the court’s apparent sudden change, stating to TUKO.co.ke: “The bench had previously told us that there were no open dates until October 29 for our petition. However, they convened unexpectedly on Saturday, October 19, and assigned a hearing date for Tuesday, October 22, without informing us in advance.”
Allegations of External Influence
Suspicions of bias were further fueled by comments from Kapseret MP Oscar Sudi. Sudi allegedly mentioned that the swearing-in of deputy president nominee Kithure Kindiki had been moved up to coincide with Gachagua’s hearing date. This led Gachagua’s team to suggest that the judges might be “dancing to Oscar Sudi’s tune,” implying external influence on the judicial process.
Demands for Transparency
In response to these perceived irregularities, Gachagua’s legal team is calling for:
- An investigation into how the case was reassigned.
- Clarification on whether Chief Justice Martha Koome approved the transfer of Gachagua’s file.
- Transparency regarding the timing and procedures that led to the case reassignment.
The team emphasized their concerns in a letter to the deputy registrar of the High Court in Nairobi, stating: “We need to know whether Chief Justice Koome was informed, and if so, at what time. This situation has compromised our client’s confidence in the fairness of the Judiciary.”
Implications for Kenya’s Judicial System
These accusations of bias and external interference could have far-reaching consequences, potentially affecting:
- The outcome of Gachagua’s impeachment case.
- Public trust in Kenya’s judicial system.
- The political landscape, given Gachagua’s high-profile position.
As the October 22 hearing approaches, the nation waits to see how these allegations will impact the proceedings and whether Gachagua will receive what his team considers a fair trial.
