Legal scholar Professor Makau Mutua has sharply criticized veteran lawyer Paul Muite, who represents Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua in his impeachment proceedings.
In a tweet on Friday, October 11, 2024, Mutua urged Muite to temper his optimism regarding the looming impeachment.
While acknowledging Muite’s stature as one of Kenya’s leading lawyers, Mutua advised him against providing Gachagua with false hope.
“My great friend @Paul_Muite is one of the country’s greatest lawyers, but he should stop humoring DP @rigathi with false hope. Mr. Gachagua’s goose is cooked. He himself — of his own volition — passed through the Door of No Return,” he stated.
Mutua’s remarks come in the wake of a High Court decision that referred the impeachment case to Chief Justice Martha Koome, who will appoint a three-judge bench to hear the matter.
This referral follows Muite’s assertions that the case presents unprecedented constitutional questions that warrant careful consideration.
Justice Lawrence Mugambi concurred with Gachagua and other petitioners, deeming the issues raised in the petitions substantial enough to require a more comprehensive examination by a specialized judicial panel.
“It is my considered opinion that the issues raised are weighty constitutional questions, hence I am persuaded to refer them to the Chief Justice for empanelment of a bench,” Justice Mugambi stated.
Among the contentious issues is the adequacy of public participation, which Gachagua contends was insufficient.
The judge emphasized that the impeachment of a deputy president is a matter of significant public interest, highlighting unique challenges such as the time constraints of the impeachment process and the proper constitution of Parliament.
In his submissions, Muite argued that the court should assess the public participation conducted by Parliament prior to the impeachment vote, claiming it did not meet the necessary threshold.
He further challenged the National Assembly’s standing orders, which allow only seven days to resolve the matter and forward it to the Senate.
Muite contended that Gachagua was not granted adequate time to address the allegations against him, asserting that he should have had at least 12 days to prepare his defence.
Conversely, the National Assembly, represented by lawyer Benson Millimo, opposed Gachagua’s application, asserting that it had already finalized its proceedings and submitted its resolution to the Senate.
Millimo maintained that if Gachagua had concerns regarding the procedures, he would have the opportunity to defend himself during the trial.
As the political and legal battles unfold, the outcome of Gachagua’s impeachment remains uncertain, with significant implications for the Kenyan government.
