Constitutional petitions against Gachagua referenced to Chief Justice

By Robert Mutasi 

High Court Judge Justice Lawrence Mugambi has referred petitions challenging the constitutional behavior of Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua to Chief Justice Martha Koome for further debate.

The decision was made after a ruling in which the court had recognized there were "weighty constitutional questions" that needed answers expressed in petitions and anchored in Article 163 of the Kenyan Constitution that describes the mandate of the Supreme Court.

Justice Mugambi said that courts do not exist to serve the intellectual stimulation of the elites but to serve the public in matters of great concern.

The petitions, spearheaded by different civil society groups, claim Gachagua's actions during his tenure violate provisions in the Constitution, hence setting a case for impeachment proceedings.

The petitioners say that Gachagua has contravened the principles of good governance and accountability as enshrined in the Kenyan Constitution.

The burden now falls on Koome, as Chief Justice, to empanel a bench to hear the case. The process could shape Kenya's political landscape.

The results of this legal fight may go well beyond this present administration as the people and different political camps become more vocal in the call for accountability.

Critics say Gachagua has been facing controversies that raise ethical questions as to how proper he is to sit in office.

The decision is part of a broader conversation about the role of the judiciary in political matters in Kenya. History is riddled with numerous examples of how the judiciary has used itself to keep political contests within the milieu of political conflict and to ensure that elected officials act within the purview of constitutional edict.

As events continue to unfold, the country will look at Chief Justice Koome and her decision on the composition of a bench that can tackle these critical constitutional questions.

What a moment it might prove to be in Kenya's political history, given the willingness of the judiciary to take up matters of public interest to either further consolidate the hold on power by this current administration or not.

Pressures for accountability mounted, and the implications of this case may well exceed the courtroom and help shape the future of governance in Kenya.