Governor Mwangaza's hopes dimmed as High Court upholds her impeachment

In its ruling, the court stated that the Senate had acted within the Constitution during Mwangaza’s removal process. It dismissed her claims that the impeachment was marred by irregularities, stating that she had failed to provide sufficient evidence to support her allegations.

"This court finds that the amended petition is without merit and dismissed. The gazette notice published on 21 August 2024 to remove her from office is affirmed," ruled Justice Bahati Mwamuye.

The court further directed that all constitutional requirements regarding the vacancy be adhered to within the stipulated timelines.

Additionally, the court determined that the Senate did not violate any court orders during the impeachment. Mwangaza had argued that the Senate proceeded with her removal despite pending court proceedings aimed at blocking the process. However, the court found no substantial proof that the Senate had defied any valid court directive.

"The Senate could not have disobeyed orders that were never properly brought before it," the ruling stated. The court emphasized that if Mwangaza wanted to halt the process, she should have taken the necessary steps to extract and present the relevant court orders. Since no conclusive evidence of contempt was provided, the impeachment was allowed to stand.

Regarding public participation, the court acknowledged that it is a constitutional requirement but clarified that, in an impeachment process, it primarily occurs at the county level rather than in the Senate.

Mwangaza had claimed that her impeachment lacked public participation, but the respondents opposed this argument. The court declined to rule on the matter, stating that it was central to another ongoing case before the Meru Court.

The High Court also examined whether due process had been followed in accordance with the Constitution. Mwangaza contended that she was only given two minutes to defend herself, effectively denying her a fair hearing. However, the court ruled that official records indicated she had been granted the opportunity to speak.

"Whether she chose to remain silent or not did not change the fact that she was given a chance to present her defense," the court stated.

The court found no evidence that she was denied time to speak and noted that her legal team had not raised any objections regarding the time allocated for her defense. Therefore, it concluded that the procedural requirements for impeachment had been met.