The Federation of Women Lawyers (Fida-Kenya) and Council of Governors (COG) will participate in a petition challenging the impeachment of Meru Governor Kawira Mwangaza.
High Court Judge Bahati Mwamuye on Wednesday allowed COG, Fida and Mr Jason Kathurima, a Meru resident, to join the case as interested parties, in the matter.
Fida submitted that women have the right to equal treatment, including the right to equal opportunities in the political, economic, cultural and social sphere.
“The joinder of Fida is crucial as the matter is one of great public interest and specifically in relation to the rights of women in public office," the lobby said through lawyer Eunice Lumallas.
The judge directed the case to be heard on October 8, in open court after some residents kept interrupting the online hearing with messages such as “Kawira must go”.
Senators endorsed the decision by the Meru County Assembly to impeach Ms Mwangaza after a third attempt.
The embattled Meru governor challenged her ouster stating that the resolution for her removal was founded on grounds that lacked the legally established threshold for the removal of a governor.
“A declaration that section 33(8) of the County Governments Act is unconstitutional in as far as it allows the re-introduction of the same charges which previously failed to result in the removal of a governor after the expiry of three months in that the same proviso amounts to double jeopardy and a clear contravention of Article 50(2) of the Constitution,” she said in her petition.
On the August 21 decision, 26 senators voted in support of the three charges brought against Ms Mwangaza, to impeach her from office.
She rushed to court the same day and obtained an order stopping the implementation of the resolution of the Senate, pending the determination of her petition.
Ms Mwangaza challenged her ouster arguing that the senators debated her removal yet she had obtained a court order, stopping the impeachment process.
In response to the petition, the Senate argued that it was not given an opportunity to be heard before the decision was made.
The senators also challenged the order arguing that it violates the principles of natural justice, which provides that parties have a right to be heard before adverse orders are made against them.
