Gachagua ouster: President Ruto challenges High Court powers to determine petitions
President William Ruto (left) and his Impeached deputy Rigathi Gachagua.
President William Ruto has asked the High Court to strike out several petitions challenging the removal of Rigathi Gachagua as Deputy President, arguing that the matters raised and prayers sought are exclusively reserved for the Supreme Court.
In his response to the petitions, Dr Ruto said that the cases, as drawn and filed, contravene Article 140 as read together with Articles 148 and 149 of the Constitution, which vest the mandate to determine disputes emanating from a presidential electoral process in the Supreme Court.
“By dint of Article 165 (5) (a) of the Constitution, the honorable court cannot determine the petition as canvassed and or grant the prayers sought, being a matter reserved for the exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court,” Dr Ruto said through lawyer Adrian Kamotho.
Mr Gachagua and several other petitioners challenged impeachment process, citing inadequate public participation, and the failure to substantiate all the allegations brought against him.
Justice Chacha Mwita and Richard Mwongo, sitting at Milimani and Kerugoya High Court, respectively certified the matters as urgent and stopped the replacement of Mr Gachagua as the Deputy President.
Attorney-General Dorcas Oduor and National Assembly filed applications last week, challenging the orders and Justices Eric Ogola, Anthony Mrima and Freda Mugambi directed the matters be mentioned this morning (Tuesday) for directions.
President Ruto, however, wants the cases struck out, arguing that they have been filed in disregard of the law and are an abuse of court process.
Mr Kamotho said the petitions violate provisions of Article 143 (2) of the Constitution and an express order of the Supreme Court to the effect that civil proceedings cannot be instituted against the President, during their tenure in respect of anything done or not done under the Constitution.
“The petition herein is irredeemably defective, null and void ab initio for breach of mandatory provisions of the law,” Mr Kamotho said.
