Court Orders Fresh Public Hearings on Gachagua Impeachment Motion

KERUGOYA, Kenya – The High Court has ordered Parliament to conduct a second round of public participation, ensuring that all Kenyans can submit their views on the impeachment motion against Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua.

The decision follows concerns over the adequacy and inclusiveness of the initial public engagement.

In a ruling delivered Thursday by Justice Richard Mwongo at the Kerugoya Law Courts, the judge emphasized that the public participation process must not be a mere formality, but a genuine opportunity for Kenyans at all levels to have their voices heard.

Justice Mwongo stressed that the process should be clear, inclusive, and transparent, allowing the public to fully grasp the subject matter and contribute meaningfully.

“Public participation must be structured in a way that all citizens can engage, not just a select few. The process needs to be accessible and transparent, giving the public sufficient information beforehand,” the judge stated in his ruling.

The court’s directive comes after Kirinyaga Woman Representative Njeri Maina filed a petition challenging the effectiveness of the first round of public participation, which was scheduled to begin on Friday, October 4.

Maina argued that the two-day notice period, published on October 2, was too short for proper public sensitization and engagement.

She also raised concerns about the lack of clear instructions on how to access a template form for submitting opinions, which she said would exclude many Kenyans, particularly those without internet access.

In response, Justice Mwongo ordered that a second round of public participation be conducted at the constituency level, giving citizens across the country a more direct platform to engage with their Members of Parliament on the impeachment motion.

“Parliament shall organize public hearings in each constituency to ensure that all Kenyans have an opportunity to present their views on the impeachment motion,” the ruling stated.

The petition also highlighted issues with the template form provided by Parliament for submitting responses.

According to Maina, the form was designed in a way that limited responses to supporting or opposing the motion, without allowing citizens to provide detailed reasons for their stance. She argued that such limitations could skew the outcome of the public consultation process.