Embattled Meru Governor Kawira Mwangaza has suffered a major blow after the High Court upheld her impeachment.
Justice Bahati Mwamuye said that the Senate had acted in accordance with the Constitution during Mwangaza’s impeachment process.
The court dismissed her claims that the process was marred by chaos, ruling that she had failed to substantiate these allegations.
“This court finds that The amended petition is without merit and dismissed..the gazette notice published 21 . august.2024 to remove her from office is affirmed ,” Justice Bahati Mwamuye ruled
Furthermore, the court determined that the Senate did not violate any court orders while handling the impeachment.
Mwangaza had argued that the Senate proceeded with the impeachment despite ongoing court proceedings intended to block the process. However, the court found no sufficient proof that the Senate had defied any valid court order. It emphasized that Mwangaza should have taken the necessary steps to extract and present court orders before the Senate if she wished to halt the process.
“The Senate could not have disobeyed orders that were never properly brought before it,” the court ruled, adding that had there been clear, deliberately ignored court orders, it would have had grounds to overturn the Senate’s decision. Since no conclusive evidence of contempt was presented, the impeachment was allowed to stand.
The court acknowledged that public participation is a constitutional requirement. However, it clarified that in an impeachment process, this occurs primarily at the county level rather than at the Senate level.
Mwangaza had claimed that there was no public participation in her impeachment, but the respondents opposed this claim. The court declined to rule on the matter, stating that it was central to another ongoing case before the Mweu Court.
The court also examined whether due procedure was followed in accordance with the Constitution.
Mwangaza had argued that she was only given two minutes to defend herself, thus denying her a fair hearing.
However, the court ruled that official documents 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,” court noted
The court found no evidence that she was denied time to speak and noted that her lawyers had not raised any objections regarding the time allocated to her. Therefore
, it concluded that the procedural requirements for impeachment had been met.
