Meru Governor Kawira Mwangaza has suffered a significant setback after the High Court upheld the Senate’s decision to remove her from office.
In its ruling, the court determined that the Senate had acted within the constitutional framework during Mwangaza’s impeachment process. It dismissed her claims of irregularities, stating that she failed to present sufficient evidence to support her allegations.
"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 directed that all constitutional requirements regarding the vacancy be adhered to within the stipulated timelines.
Additionally, the court rejected Mwangaza’s argument that the Senate had violated court orders by proceeding with the impeachment despite pending legal challenges. It found no substantial proof that the Senate had defied any valid court directive.
"The Senate could not have disobeyed orders that were never properly brought before it," the ruling stated. The court emphasized that if Mwangaza wanted to halt the process, she should have taken the necessary steps to extract and present the relevant court orders. Since no conclusive evidence of contempt was provided, the impeachment stood.
On the issue of public participation, the court acknowledged its constitutional importance but clarified that, in an impeachment process, public engagement primarily occurs at the county level rather than in the Senate. Mwangaza had argued that her removal lacked public participation, but the court declined to rule on the matter, stating it was central to another ongoing case before the Meru Court.
The High Court also examined whether due process had been followed. Mwangaza contended that she was only given two minutes to defend herself, denying her a fair hearing. However, the court found that official records indicated she had been granted an opportunity to present her defense.
"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.
Finding no evidence that she had been denied time to speak, and noting that her legal team had not objected to the time allocated, the court concluded that procedural requirements for impeachment had been met.