Petitioners allege Judiciary 'mischief' in case blocking DP Gachagua's impeachment

Three Kenyans are alleging interference after they reportedly experienced hitches with the Judiciary's electronic case-filing system while trying to file a petition to block Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua’s October 17 impeachment.

In their petition, Miruru Waweru, Andrew Njoroge and Mutonga Kamau argued that National Assembly Speaker Moses Wetangula failed to communicate to Senate Speaker Amason Kingi within two days after the impeachment motion met MPs’ support threshold.

They submitted that the impeachment bid, having been moved on October 1, ought to have been sent to Kingi’s office on or before October 3.

It is while filing the case on October 18 to challenge Gachagua’s ouster the previous night that Waweru, Njoroge and Kamau say they encountered “what seems to us as a deliberate effort to sabotage the filing of the matter with a view of defeating justice.”

In an October 30 letter to Judiciary Registrar Winfridah Mokaya, the trio claims after uploading the petition, application, certificate of urgency and all annexures at 1:40 a.m., they could neither complete M-Pesa payment through the Safaricom mobile application nor the SIM toolkit.

After “numerous” failed payment attempts, they say, Waweru called Safaricom at 2:12 a.m. where he was advised by a customer care representative to pay via the *334# USSD code.

“After the above payment was eventually processed by Safaricom, the payment failed to be registered in the court's e-filling portal and the invoice remained unpaid for hours until the amount was later auto-refunded,” the letter reads.

The petitioners say the case filing portal was generating invoices without updating the outstanding balance payable.

Hours later at 9:01 a.m., the trio says the payment was auto-refunded by the court system, thereby rejecting the petition.

“It is our view that the systems were malfunctioning in a deliberate attempt to block our petition and application from being placed before a judge timeously until the National Assembly completed the approval of the President's deputy president nominee with intent to defeat grant of stay orders sought,” Waweru, Njoroge and Kamau say.

“How would three independent entities; the court, Safaricom PLC, and Kenya Commercial Bank Limited reverse a transaction without the payees' approval? What would be the motive behind this mischief?”

After the petition was rejected and the money refunded, the three say they paid again at 9:20 a.m.

“Surprisingly, once the payment was received in the e-filing portal, the receipt generated by the system was done at 9:10 a.m., although the M- Pesa payment was done at 9:20 a.m., 10 minutes after the receipt was generated. How is this possible, can a receipt be issued before payment?” the letter reads.

The petition was eventually handled by the judge but at 2 p.m., when the National Assembly had approved President William Ruto’s deputy presidential nominee, Kithure Kindiki.

The conservatory orders Waweru, Njoroge and Kamau sought were not granted, and per their letter, the order was uploaded to the portal a few minutes before 5 p.m.

The trio is now seeking an explanation as to why their initial payment was refunded, why the petition was rejected and who approved the refund.

They also seek answers on why the Judiciary’s e-filing system’s receipt time stamps conflict with M-Pesa payment time stamps.

“Why would this not be termed as a scandalous scheme to subvert justice?” adds the letter.

The Interior Minister is yet to assume the DP's office due to court orders blocking his swearing-in, pending the hearing and determination of cases challenging Gachagua’s impeachment.