A petitioner challenging the impeachment of former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua has protested the postponement of his case, accusing the Judiciary of frustrating efforts to have the matter heard and determined.
Speaking outside the Milimani Law Courts on Thursday, advocate Harrison Kinyanjui, who represents petitioner Enock Aura, said the High Court had been scheduled to hear the constitutional petition but the matter was unexpectedly adjourned to June 18.
Kinyanjui said the hearing date had been issued on May 7 and was publicly available, adding that parties had prepared to proceed with the case.
He claimed the Judiciary communicated the new hearing date without prior consultation, describing the move as a violation of the constitutional rights to a fair hearing and access to justice.
“The case was listed for hearing today and we were ready to proceed. We have now been informed that it has been shifted to June 18,” Kinyanjui told journalists.
The lawyer argued that the petition raises substantive constitutional questions regarding the impeachment process that led to Gachagua’s removal from office.
According to Kinyanjui, the petition contends that the impeachment did not meet the constitutional threshold set out under Article 145 of the Constitution because some constituencies were allegedly not represented during the parliamentary proceedings.
He cited the constituencies of Magarini, Ugunja and Banissa, claiming their residents were effectively excluded from representation during the impeachment process.
Kinyanjui maintained that the absence of representation from those constituencies meant the required threshold for impeachment was not attained.
“The petition demonstrates that some Kenyans were not represented during the process. The issue before the court is whether the constitutional requirements were fully complied with,” he said.
The advocate further alleged that only a limited number of lawmakers participated in the voting process and questioned whether the National Assembly complied with its own Standing Orders.
Kinyanjui told reporters that the petition challenges the legality of the transition and asks the court to determine whether all constitutional requirements were met.
He criticized the decision to postpone the hearing, alleging that there was an attempt to suppress the issues raised in the petition and have them overtaken by events.
The lawyer said his client would explore legal options, including an appeal, to challenge the adjournment.
“This case raises important constitutional questions that deserve to be heard and determined openly and transparently,” Kinyanjui said.
The matter is now scheduled for hearing before a three-judge bench on June 18.
