Randy Mongold
A petitioner challenging the impeachment of Rigathi Gachagua has written to Martha Koome, alleging he was denied a fair hearing Through lawyer Harrison Kinyanjui, petitioner Joseph Enock Aura claims a June 4 hearing never took place and was later changed to a mention Aura’s petition challenges both Gachagua’s impeachment and the appointment of Kithure Kindiki, arguing constitutional and procedural requirements were not met Search option is now available at TUKO! Feel free to search the content on topics/people you enjoy reading about in the top right corner 😉
Didacus Malowa, a journalist at TUKO.co.ke, brings over three years of experience covering politics and current affairs in Kenya.
A fresh twist has emerged in the legal battles linked to former deputy president Rigathi Gachagua’s impeachment.
Lawyer Harrison Kinyanjui addresses the media outside Milimani Law Courts. Photo: TUKO.co.ke.
Source: Original This was after a petitioner challenging the process wrote to Chief Justice Martha Koome, accusing the Judiciary of denying him a fair hearing.
Why has a petitioner written to Chief Justice Martha Koome? Joseph Enock Aura, through his lawyer Harrison Kinyanjui, has lodged a formal protest over what he terms the unexplained cancellation of a scheduled hearing in Constitutional Petition No. E586 of 2024, a case that raises questions about both Gachagua’s impeachment and Deputy President Kithure Kindiki’s subsequent assumption of office.
The complaint comes just days before a three-judge bench is expected to deliver judgment in the consolidated petitions filed by Gachagua challenging his impeachment.
In a strongly worded letter addressed to Chief Justice Koome, Kinyanjui claimed that the petition had been scheduled for hearing on Thursday, June 4, before a bench comprising Justices Eric Ogola, Anthony Mrima and Fridah Mugambi.
According to the lawyer, the hearing date had been allocated in open court on May 7, 2026, with all parties aware of the schedule.
However, when the matter came up for hearing, the court allegedly did not sit and no explanation was provided to the petitioner or other parties involved.
Kinyanjui stated that the matter remained listed as a hearing in the Judiciary’s official cause list on the morning of June 4 before events took an unexpected turn.
“Without notification to us as to what reason warranted the aborted hearing, no communication was made to us. The Bench did not sit; and no reason was assigned for the Petitioner to be denied of a hearing of his Petition on the scheduled 4th June 2026, nor was any such reason posted on the CTS,” Kinyanjui wrote. What concerns has Aura raised about Judiciary’s system? He further alleged that the Judiciary’s Case Tracking System (CTS) was later altered to indicate that the matter had been listed for mention rather than hearing.
According to the lawyer, no mention ever took place before the bench or any of the judges on the scheduled date.
“Mysteriously too, although the CTS had up to June 4th, 2026 indicated that the matter was to be heard on the said 4th June 2026, this was changed to a mention afterwards,” he stated. The petitioner now claims that the case has been fixed for mention on June 18 without his participation or involvement, effectively overturning earlier court directions that had set aside June 4 for the hearing of the matter.
“Without the Petitioner’s participation or involvement the Order made on 7th May 2026 for the Hearing of his Petition was thus vacated by the Court without due process,” he wrote. What is Joseph Aura’s petition about? The dispute revolves around a petition that was previously separated from the high-profile cases filed by Gachagua challenging his impeachment.
The three-judge bench deconsolidated Aura’s petition on May 29, 2025, determining that it raised distinct constitutional questions deserving independent consideration.
While Gachagua’s petitions focus largely on the legality of the impeachment process, Aura’s case extends to issues surrounding Kindiki’s nomination, approval and swearing-in as deputy president.
Aura argues that the petition contains unique constitutional questions that have not been addressed elsewhere and should therefore be heard independently before judgment is rendered in the consolidated matters.
“It is totally unfair to the Petitioner to BLOCK the hearing of his Petition on 4th June 2026”, adding that “the move amounts to a violation of the Petitioner’s constitutional rights to access justice and a fair hearing under Articles 48, 25(c) and 50(1) of the Constitution,” Kinyanjui stated. Why is Aura challenging Kindiki’s appointment? Among the issues raised is his contention that the threshold required to impeach a deputy president was never met because several Members of Parliament were absent during the National Assembly proceedings.
He claims that MPs representing Banissa, Ugunja, Magarini and Suba South constituencies did not participate, a factor he believes undermined the legitimacy of the impeachment vote.
The petitioner also challenges Kindiki’s appointment, arguing that the process failed to comply with constitutional and statutory requirements.
In court filings, Aura contends that Kindiki did not personally appear before the National Assembly during the approval proceedings held on October 18, 2024.
He further argues that Parliament did not generate a report as required under the Public Appointments (Parliamentary Approval) Act, rendering the nomination and subsequent approval invalid.
As a result, Aura is seeking declarations that Kindiki’s appointment as deputy president was unconstitutional and that he should be barred from exercising the powers and functions of the office.
Lawyer Harrison Kinyanjui urged the chief justice to act to ensure justice. Photo: Martha Koome.
Source: Twitter Central to Kinyanjui’s complaint is the fear that delaying the hearing until after the expected judgment in Gachagua’s consolidated petitions could severely prejudice his client’s case.
The lawyer warned that once judgment is delivered, issues raised in Aura’s petition may be deemed settled under the legal doctrine of res judicata, effectively shutting the door on arguments that have never been heard on their merits.
“It will mean that even if the Petitioner argues his petition on issues covered in the consolidated petitions the matters will be alleged to be closed by the doctrine of res judicata, yet without affording the Petitioner in the instant petition any hearing.We now request that your office intervenes to stem the grave and imminent injustice likely to be faced by the Petitioner,” the letter reads in part. He accused the Judiciary of placing the petitioner at risk of suffering what he described as grave and imminent injustice by denying him an opportunity to present his case before judgment is delivered in the related proceedings.
Source: TUKO.co.ke
Source: Tuko.co.ke | Read the Full Story…
