In its response to a petition filed by Ms Mwangaza in Nairobi, the Senate on Wednesday, September 4, pointed out that Ms Mwangaza sued the Speaker of the House Amason Kingi and left out the House and the lawmakers who voted to uphold her impeachment.
The senators, who sought to join the case, argued that it is only the Senate that could answer the issues raised regarding the proceedings before the House.
The senate added that the court issued an order with far-reaching consequences that affect its mandate.
“Consequently, the omission of the Senate of the Republic of Kenya from these proceedings renders the petition incurably defective,” the petition reads.
Watch: Governor Mwangaza's impeachment hearing
Further, Senate said the court gave open-ended timelines with no indication as to when the ruling on the application would be delivered or even when the main petition would be heard.
The senators said the order issued on August 21, 2024 violates the principles of natural justice, which provides that parties have a right to be heard before adverse orders are made against them.
“The Senate was not given an opportunity to be heard,” Mr Kingi said in the application, adding that the Speaker has no vote on matters before the House.
Senators endorsed the decision by the Meru County Assembly to send Ms Mwangaza home on the third attempt after 26 members voted in support of the three charges brought against the county boss.
She rushed to court the same day and High Court judge Bahati Mwamuye stopped the implementation of the resolution of the Senate, removing her from office.
Ms Mwangaza challenged her ouster, arguing that the senators debated her removal yet she had obtained a court order, stopping her impeachment process.
She also challenged the process, arguing that it was done on a day that was not gazetted as a sitting of the Senate in contravention of the House constitutional mandate.
The embattled Meru governor also argued 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 is clear contravention of Article 50(2) of the constitution,” she said in her petition.
Justice Mwamuye directed the parties to appear before him on September 17, for directions as to the hearing of the case.
