Blow to Governor Mwangaza as Court Upholds Impeachment

Meru Governor Kawira Mwangaza has faced a significant setback after the High Court affirmed the Senate’s decision to remove her from office.

In its verdict, the court ruled that the Senate followed constitutional procedures in her impeachment. It rejected Mwangaza’s assertions of irregularities in the process, stating that she did not present adequate evidence to substantiate her claims.

“This court finds that the amended petition is without merit and dismissed. The gazette notice published on 21 August 2024 to remove her from office is affirmed,” ruled Justice Bahati Mwamuye.

The court also instructed that all constitutional procedures for filling the vacancy be followed within the required timelines.

Furthermore, it ruled that the Senate had not breached any court orders during the impeachment process. Mwangaza had claimed that the Senate went ahead with her removal despite ongoing court proceedings seeking to halt it. However, the court found no credible evidence proving that the Senate had disregarded any lawful directive.

The court stressed that if Mwangaza sought to halt the impeachment process, she should have taken the necessary steps to obtain and present the relevant court orders. Since no clear evidence of contempt was provided, the impeachment remained valid.

On the issue of public participation, the court acknowledged its constitutional significance but clarified that, in an impeachment process, it primarily takes place at the county level rather than in the Senate.

Mwangaza had argued that her removal lacked public involvement, but the respondents refuted this claim. The court declined to issue a ruling on the matter, noting that it was a key issue in a separate ongoing case before the Meru Court.

The High Court also assessed whether the process adhered to constitutional guidelines. Mwangaza alleged that she was only given two minutes to defend herself, effectively denying her a fair hearing. However, the court ruled that official records showed she had been given an opportunity to present her case.

“Whether she chose to remain silent or not did not change the fact that she was given a chance to present her defense,” the court stated.

The court found no proof that Mwangaza was denied sufficient time to speak and noted that her legal team had not objected to the time allocated for her defense. As a result, it determined that the impeachment process had followed the required legal procedures.