All eyes will be on the Senate, where Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua will be tried in plenary sessions following his impeachment by the National Assembly.[…]CLICK HERE TO READ THE FULL ARTICLE▶
The trial sessions have been scheduled for Wednesday, October 17, and Thursday, October 18.
In the Senate, the deputy president’s impeachment will stand if at least two-thirds of the lawmakers there uphold the charges against him.
Previously, before the impeachment was prosecuted in the National Assembly, some people in Gachagua’s sanctum said he would seek a lifeline in the courts should both houses of parliament agree to send him home.
Lawyer Nelson Havi, however, says that the court option cannot be tenable in this case.
According to him, the president and his deputy’s impeachment are immune against any review by the judicial system.
He posited that the current constitution did not spare a place for the courts’ role in the impeachment of the president and his deputy, which he implied is a unique case compared to others.
“Rigathi Gachagua will cease being DP on the vote of the Senate. Unlike the removal of a Judge, which can be appealed to the Supreme Court, impeachment of the President and DP is final and incapable of challenge. The Constitution did not contemplate judicial intervention on impeachment,” he said.
But constitutional lawyer Waikwa Wanyoike differed with another perspective.
According to Wanyoike, the president and his deputy, who are public officers, and institutions of government, like parliament, are all subordinate to the Judiciary and thus, their undertakings can be reviewed by the judicial officers when the need arises.
“The judicial review powers of the Courts are extra-ordinarily sweeping. There is nothing done by any public officer or any state or public body – impeachment of deputy, president or governors included – that is insulated from judicial review,” said Wanyoike.
On his part, lawyer Miracle Mudeyi, while siding with Wanyoike, argued that the judicial system, while observing the independence of state organs, cannot wish away an illegality.
“SCORK in Mate v Wambora, emphasized that the Constitution distributes powers across various organs, but when an allegation arises that any of these organs has acted inconsistently with the Constitution, courts are empowered under Article 165(3)(d)(ii),”…CLICK HERE TO READ MORE ARTICLES>>>
