Gachagua Impeachment case: Advocate Njeri Maina accuses National Assembly Counsel of misleading court

Appearing before a three-judge bench comprising Justices Eric Ogolla, Anthony Mrima and Freda Mugambi at the Milimani Law Courts, Maina, who is part of Gachagua's legal team, challenged submissions by advocate Moses Kipkogei, who is representing the National Assembly in the impeachment case.

Kipkogei had told the court that the public participation exercise conducted during the impeachment process was largely peaceful across the country except in Kirinyaga County, where he alleged Maina disrupted the exercise by closing her office before obtaining court orders halting the process.

Maina, who is both the Kirinyaga Woman Representative and a member of Gachagua’s legal team, dismissed the claims as false and inconsistent with the National Assembly’s own records.

“He blatantly lied to this court,” Maina submitted. “There is no such information pertaining to that in this affidavit.”

She told the bench that her petition, HCCHRPET E014 of 2024, was filed on October 2, 2024, with orders issued on October 3, while the public participation exercise took place on October 4 and 5, 2024.

Referring the judges to paragraph 45 of the affidavit cited by Kipkogei, Maina said the document itself confirmed that county woman representative offices remained open and facilitated public participation during the exercise.

“There is no rational argument that can be made that that petitioner closed her office, rushed to court to obtain court orders after declining or closing her office so that public participation could not take place,” she argued.

Maina further directed the bench to the National Assembly report dated October 8, 2024, particularly paragraphs 262 and 263, which listed areas where political interference and violence were recorded during the exercise, including Bomas of Kenya, Murang’a, Nyandarua and Nyeri counties.

She noted that Kirinyaga County was not mentioned in the report.

“Those names certainly do not sound like Kerugoya or Kirinyaga County,” she submitted.

Maina also disputed Kipkogei’s oral claim that he required a police escort to access Kerugoya town due to tension surrounding the exercise, saying the allegation was not contained anywhere in his affidavit.

“The tension was so palpable, the magnitude of it, that he needed to be escorted by police officers to access Kerugoya town. My lords, my lady, that information is not contained anywhere in this affidavit,” she said.

She further referred the court to page 340 of the National Assembly report, which recorded that public participation proceeded at Kirinyaga Central NGCDF offices, with 14 members of the public taking part and the outcome duly documented.

“It was his intention to mislead this court so that he could take away from the credibility of the orders emanating from petition E014 of 2024. It was malicious and intentional,” Maina submitted.

The case before the bench is a consolidation of seven petitions filed by 41 individuals challenging the constitutionality of the process that led to Gachagua’s impeachment by the Senate on October 17, 2024.

Gachagua’s legal team, led by Senior Counsel Paul Muite, has since abandoned its request for reinstatement and is now seeking compensation, damages and loss of earnings amounting to more than KSh450 million.