It was a tough evening for Kibwezi MP Mwengi Mutuse as he came under pointed cross-examination from lawyers of Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua at Senate. His lawyers, including Elisha Ongoya and Tom Macharia, grilled the legislator on his impeachment motion as they sought to tear down the claims made in the document tabled at Parliament.
The MP often found himself on the defence as he was sharply interrogated over the basis of his impeachment motion.
Mr Mutuse first took the House through the grounds of his ouster motion, saying the DP had violated various sections of the Constitution.
“For the last two years, the DP has visited various places in Kenya and has been publicising a notion that Kenya is a company that is owned by shareholders and that those who own shares in the company called Kenya would benefit in development in terms of service delivery. It is in our contention that Kenya is not a company,” he said.
After the MP addressed Senators, lawyer Ongoya took the stage to challenge his various charges against the Deputy President, beginning with his allegations that Mr Gachagua threatened Justice Esther Maina of the High Court. Justice Maina had previously ruled that Mr Gachagua, then an MP, failed to explain how he acquired wealth from government agencies.
The cross-examination also touched on Mr Mutuse’s allegation that DP Gachagua used his companies to enrich himself through corruption.
Kayole demolitions
MP Ongoya also cross-examined Mr Mutuse over the parts of his motion touching on DP Gachagua’s utterances during the Kayole demolitions.
“Did Cabinet approve a resolution not to engage citizens in demolitions?” he asked the legislator.
“I wouldn’t know because I’m not in Cabinet,” the MP responded.
“And yet you’re saying that call by the Deputy President to engage citizens is part of the violation of the Cabinet resolution?”
“In context,” MP Mutuse said.
“I seek to know: the people who elected you, will they respect this behaviour here?”
“Mr Speaker I request your protection. The people of Kibwezi are not on trial.”
Shareholders comments
During his cross-examination, Mr Macharia played a video featuring President William Ruto addressing a crowd in Murang’a. In the clip, Dr Ruto acknowledges having appointed individuals from the region to key government positions, referring to them as “shareholders” in his administration.
“Who was speaking in that video?” the lawyer asked.
“The President of the Republic of Kenya, William Ruto,” responded Mr Mutuse.
Mr Macharia pressed on, asking whether the President had indeed referred to Murang’a residents as “major shareholders” of the government. Mutuse confirmed, saying, “Yes, he did.”
The counsel then questioned how Mr Mutuse could fault the DP for echoing sentiments of the President.
“When the DP assists the President in discussing shareholders, how does that become an impeachable offense?” Mr Macharia asked.
Mr Mutuse maintained that such language was not constitutionally assigned to the President, nor was it appropriate for the DP to use.
Follow the rest of our coverage on today’s trial at Senate here.
