President William Ruto has asserted that the High Court lacks the authority to hear petitions challenging the impeachment of Rigathi Gachagua.
Represented by his lawyer, Adrian Kamotho, Ruto is contesting a suit filed by David Mathenge and four others at the Kerugoya Court, arguing that only the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over such cases.
This matter is set to be heard by a three-judge bench this morning, with the impeached Deputy President, Gachagua, present for the proceedings. In this case, Ruto is named as the fifth respondent.
Meanwhile, Gachagua arrived at Milimani Law Courts on Tuesday, where a three-judge bench will consider an application challenging stay orders that prevent his nominated successor, Kithure Kindiki, from assuming office.
This application was submitted by Solicitor General Shadrack Mose, who argues that the stay order, issued by a Kirinyaga court on Friday, undermines national interests by creating a vacancy in the Deputy President’s office, which the constitution does not permit.
Mose’s application states that the conservatory orders were issued ex parte, denying the state, the National Assembly, and other parties the opportunity to be heard.
He contends that leaving the Deputy President’s office vacant due to these interim orders is prejudicial to the people of Kenya.
The National Assembly has also challenged Justice Richard Mwongo’s issuance of the order, claiming he did not confirm whether he had jurisdiction over impeachment matters.
Advocate Eric Gumbo argues that the constitution, particularly Articles 95 and 96, grants Parliament exclusive authority to hold the Executive accountable through mechanisms like impeachment.
Gumbo stated that Justice Mwongo’s ex parte order effectively reviewed the impeachment proceedings, despite Gachagua losing his office when the Senate upheld his impeachment on October 17.
The National Assembly supports the Attorney General’s request to annul the stay orders, arguing that halting the Senate’s resolution would lead to a significant constitutional crisis.
They claim that the order was based on a lack of disclosure regarding the fact that the Senate’s resolution had already been enacted.
