Kibwezi West MP Mwengi Mutuse found himself in a tight corner on Wednesday during cross-examination in
the trial hearing of the impeachment motion he tabled against Deputy President
Rigathi Gachagua.
Gachagua is relying on the expertise of a battery of lawyers led
by Senior Counsel Paul Muite as he seeks to free himself from the noose of removal from
office after the National Assembly on October 8 voted to approve his
impeachment.
Mutuse was put on the spot as Gachagua’s legal counsel Elisha Ongoya sought to discredit his evidence-in-chief against the DP.
Among the accusations the DP’s legal team sought to dispel was that he undermined the government by publicly opposing its policy to move traders from the Wakulima Market to a new location on Outering Road and demolition of structures along riparian lands.
Gachagua’s team was relying on video clips where he made remarks asking the government to treat citizens humanely in keeping with its pre-campaign pledges not to antagonise them once in power.
“The Deputy President is saying ‘Let us not have war with Wananchi.’. Do you find anything offensive in that statement?” Ongoya asked, to which Mutuse said no.
“He’s calling for empathy towards wananchi. Do you find anything offensive in that call?” the lawyer asked.
Mutuse said there was nothing offensive with the statement other than the forum where the DP made the call.
According to the legislator, it was wrong for Gachagua to oppose government policy at a press conference, whereas he had the leeway to do so during Cabinet meetings.
“Do you have anything wrong with that call?” he was asked. “I have a problem with the forum...” he responded before Ongoya went again.
“You are answering your own question. I’m asking whether you have a problem with the call for empathy, please answer my question,” the lawyer insisted.
“He would have said as much in Cabinet,” Mutuse said in response.
The lawyer sought to know whether there exists any law that prohibits the DP from calling for empathy at a press conference but Mutuse appeared to be at a loss for words.
He eventually admitted that there was no such law.
Mutuse was further put to the task over his understanding of the constitutional principle of public participation before any policy implementation.
This was in regard to the DP calling for engagement between the county government of Nairobi and city traders before a decision to move them to a different area of operation was reached.
“The deputy president is saying, ‘Let’s have an engagement.’. That is consistent with the constitutional principle of public participation, true or not true,” Ongoya asked.
“Well, that’s you saying so,” Mutuse replied.
The lawyer pressed him further to explain whether the DP’s call was inconsistent with any existing law on public participation.
“Engagement and public participation may mean different things at different levels,” Mutuse said.
He insisted that the DP should have raised his objections at the ministerial meetings as opposed to doing so at a public forum.
Lawyer Ongoya, however, wasn’t satisfied with the response. He went again.
“Which part of this statement calling for empathy violates a policy decision of Cabinet?”
“You are the mover of this motion and we are testing the Deputy President’s statements against your allegation. Did Cabinet adopt a policy? resolution for unempathetic evictions?” Ongoya asked.
Mutuse held that “the Deputy President was in Cabinet; he is the one better placed to tell us”.