According to testimony filed in court, cardiologist Dr. Daniel Gikonyo stated that he received a call from the President while attending to Gachagua at Karen Hospital on October 17, 2024, inquiring about the former Deputy President’s condition. The doctor confirmed that Gachagua was indeed hospitalized and under medical care at the time.
The revelation has now become a central point in ongoing constitutional petitions challenging the legality and fairness of the impeachment process that led to Gachagua’s removal from office.
Petitioners argue that the proceedings were rushed and conducted in a manner that denied him a fair opportunity to defend himself.
The affidavit further indicates that Senate deliberations proceeded despite Gachagua’s medical condition, raising questions about whether proper procedural safeguards were observed during the impeachment vote.
The affidavit further indicates that Senate deliberations proceeded despite Gachagua’s medical condition, raising questions about whether proper procedural safeguards were observed during the impeachment vote.
Supporters of the petitioners maintain that the confirmation of hospitalization strengthens their argument that the former Deputy President was unable to participate in his own defense when critical decisions were made against him.
They also argue that any external communication during such a sensitive moment raises questions that the court must carefully examine.
On the other hand, political allies of the government insist that the impeachment followed constitutional procedures and that the courts remain the appropriate forum to resolve any disputes regarding legality and fairness.
The case, which involves multiple petitions and dozens of petitioners, is now before a three-judge bench expected to evaluate the evidence and determine whether the impeachment process met constitutional standards.
As the matter unfolds, the affidavit has added a new layer of political tension, turning what began as a parliamentary process into a wider legal and constitutional debate with implications for executive authority, legislative procedure, and the rights of elected leaders in Kenya’s political system.
On the other hand, political allies of the government insist that the impeachment followed constitutional procedures and that the courts remain the appropriate forum to resolve any disputes regarding legality and fairness.
The case, which involves multiple petitions and dozens of petitioners, is now before a three-judge bench expected to evaluate the evidence and determine whether the impeachment process met constitutional standards.
As the matter unfolds, the affidavit has added a new layer of political tension, turning what began as a parliamentary process into a wider legal and constitutional debate with implications for executive authority, legislative procedure, and the rights of elected leaders in Kenya’s political system.
0 Comments