Members of Parliament opposing the impeachment motion of Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua, had a difficult time on the floor of the House executing their point as the chamber was too hostile for dissenting voices.
From interruptions from their colleagues through point of orders, and shouts, Gachagua allies weathered a strong storm as the National Assembly was debating the impeachment motion.
Gathoni Wamuchomba (Githunguri), Makali Mulu (Kitui Central), John Kaguchia (Mukurweini), Wanjiku Muhia (Kipipiri) and Jane Njeri (Kirinyaga) endured their hostile colleagues who shouted at them and interrupted them through a point of order and information.
Dr Mulu, Ms Wamuchomba, Ms Muhia and Mr Kaguchia also raised procedural issues and substantiation of remarks made by those supporting the motion by speaker Moses Wetang’ula.
Impeachment process was flawed and irregular - MP Wamuchomba
The lawmakers felt that Mr Wetang’ula was allowing those who were supporting the motion to get away with some remarks without providing evidence or substantiating their claims.
Mr Muhia for instance questioned the speaker over the prostitution remarks which were used by a number of MPs in hitting at the Deputy President for lacking respect for women leaders.
“The issue of malaya (prostitute) has been adversely mentioned in this House, have you as the speaker anything to substantiate. It is on record that the Deputy President criss crossed the whole country campaigning for the same women especially in Mt Kenya, It is unfair that members can continue repeating and not substantiate and there is no evidence. We should have evidence,” Ms Muhia said.
Mr Kaguchia also contested a letter produced and tabled by Budalangi MP Raphael Wanjala stating that Mr Gachagua was sacked when he served as a District Officer in Laikipia in July 1997
While contributing to the motion, Mr Wanjala said the Deputy President was not in first place supposed to be cleared for the position as he was summarily dismissed during his tenure as the DO
“As a DO, he was sacked on 30TH July 1997 because of his misconduct while serving in Laikipia,” Mr Wanjala said
West Pokot residents voice discontent over Gachagua's impeachment
Mr Wanjala proceeded to read the letter “Reference is made to our letter dated May 19, 1989 on your appointment to the position of District Officer due to mismanagement of relief food and desertion of duty. Mr Speaker I table the letter,”
Mr Wanjala also claimed that Mr Gachagua has never been available in Nairobi when the President is away, “he is always in his village asking President many questions”
“This was a wrong man to be in this office in the first place,” charged Mr Wanjala
Mr Kaguchia however protested on the letter which was allowed to go on Hansard and is now part of the documents in parliament in relation to the impeachment motion.
“Honourable Wanjala has produced a photocopy of a document that we cannot vouch for its authenticity,” Mr Kaguchia protested.
Mr Wetang’ula however told Mr Kaguchia that he is fully conversant with the admissibility, promising to look at the document tabled by Mr Wanjala.
“From where you are sitting, you have not seen the document, the speaker is fully conversant with the rules of admissibility, I’ll look at the document and direct you how to use it,” Mr Wetang’ula said.
“Mr Speaker, I hope you also notice that Wamumbi has hit me with a bottle of water and that is unparliamentary,” Mr Kaguchia said.
“To the extent that the speaker didn’t see and Kaguchia is not claiming any injury, let’s leave it there,” Mr Wetang’ula said.
Dr Mulu also had a difficult time defending Mr Gachagua as he interrupted on several occasions with unnecessary points of orders and shouts from the MPs who charged to deal with any person derailing their course of hitting the DP.
Undeterred, Dr Mulu however braved the hostile environment and told off his colleagues warning them against what he termed as mob lynching of Mr Rigathi as the courts will overturn the decision a move that will bring the image of the House into shame.
At one point, Dr Mulu lost his cool and told the speaker “Are you also supporting the motion?
Ms Wamuchomba also called on the speaker to make the MPs who were supporting the motion to substantiate their allegations as stipulated in the Standing Orders.
The Standing Order stipulates that a member shall be responsible for the accuracy of any facts which the member alleges to be true and may be required to substantiate any such facts instantly.
“If a member has sufficient reason to convince the Speaker that the member is unable to substantiate the allegations instantly, the Speaker shall require that such member substantiates the allegations not later than the next sitting day, failure to which the Member shall be deemed to be disorderly within the meaning of Standing Order 107 (Disorderly conduct),” reads Standing Order 91 (2).
