Senate Speaker Amason Kingi has yet again dealt a blow to Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua in his attempt to stop the House from relying on new evidence tabled against him.
Gachagua through his lawyers had sought to have an affidavit by a witness identified as Peterson Muchira expunged as part of the documents.
The affidavit by Muchira is on the alleged sale of Olive Gardens Hotel. While appearing before the National Assembly on October 8 to defend himself against the allegations, Gachagua said the hotel belonged to his late brother, former Nyeri Governor Nderitu Gachagua, but has since been sold and proceeds shared among beneficiaries, including him.
“The allegation that I own the Olive Garden Hotel is false,” Gachagua told MPs.
Muchira said the DP’s statement was a contradiction of the true nature of the status of ownership of the hotel. Wachira said he is a shareholder and director of TM Civil Engineering Limited, the company referred to in the sale agreement submitted by the DP.
He claimed that Gachagua approached him on or around March 31, 2023, and convinced him to buy the Olive Garden Hotel.
“The Deputy President persuaded me to enter into an informal secret arrangement regarding the transaction embodied in the agreement annexed on pages 10 to 34 of his response to the motion,” Muchira said in his affidavit.
He went on: “In summary, the terms of the secret arrangement were that the Deputy President would buy the hotel from me by refunding the purchase price of Sh412 million [and then] instruct and pay a contractor to renovate the hotel after the completion of the transaction."
This also includes responses from various government agencies in relation to the matter, all presented on October 14.
In his ruling, Kingi observed that while Rule 20 of part of the second schedule of the standing orders provides that in presenting the Assembly shall not provide new evidence that is not part of the allegations as forwarded, an invitation was extended to both parties to among other specify any other evidence to be relied on in the matter.
“Having analysed the documentation submitted against the grounds for the proposed impeachment, I find that the documents objected to constitute evidence in support of the allegations already made in the impeachment motion," he stated.
He added, as a fact, that all parties had been instructed when sending responses to indicate "any other evidence" to be relied on. The documents in question, he stated, does not constitute new evidence but form evidence in support of an allegation which was already made.
"That is why Rule 6 and 7 of the rules of procedure permits the senate to receive witness statements, list of witnesses to be invited by any and other evidence to buttress an allegation already made," he pointed out.
He added, "What is not allowed is to introduce new allegations or to introduce new evidence that is extraneous to the allegations made in an impeachment motion."
"It is my considered view that the affidavit and the document marked as volume 8A fall within the permissible rules of procedure. I therefore rule that objection is dismissed."