Laughter, sarcasm and sharp exchanges dominate Gachagua impeachment hearing

The court session before a three-judge bench turned into an unusually theatrical courtroom battle as defence lawyers challenged medical documents filed to support claims that Mr Gachagua was admitted at Karen Hospital on October 17, 2024, with severe chest pain.

At the centre of the court proceedings was whether the hospitalisation was genuine or a strategy to avoid the Senate impeachment trial that culminated in Mr Gachagua’s removal from office the same night.

Dr Gikonyo, founder and chief cardiologist at Karen Hospital, maintained throughout the hearing that the former deputy president required urgent medical attention and remained under his care during the impeachment proceedings.

“I was the one treating him with my team. He was sick. We have data. We have provided availability,” the doctor told the court, defending the hospitalisation.

The case hearing became more animated after Deputy President Prof Kithure Kindiki’s lawyer suggested Mr Gachagua had checked into the hospital to evade impeachment proceedings.

“The patient was at the hospital to run away from the Senate. He was not sick,” the advocate put to the witness during cross-examination.

Dr Gikonyo burst into laughter openly before dismissing the allegation and replying that the lawyer’s allegation was unsupported and medically inaccurate.

Read: Revealed: Ruto phone call to Gachagua’s doctor

“I laughed because I thought it was not a serious question,” Dr Gikonyo told a packed courtroom after being accused of admitting Mr Gachagua at the health facility to shield him from senators.

“Yes, he was sick. We admitted him and data and records are available on demand by this court,” he added.

Senior Counsel Paul Muite, appearing for Mr Gachagua, later rose to defend the witness, accusing the respondents of making grave allegations without allowing the doctor adequate opportunity to respond.

“Was Rigathi Gachagua sick or not? Were you hiding him in your hospital?” Mr Muite asked during re-examination.

The courtroom again erupted in laughter before Dr Gikonyo answered calmly.

“I was the one treating him with my team. He was sick. We have data. We have provided availability,” he said.

The hearing opened with the petitioners briefly leading Dr Gikonyo through his affidavit before handing him over for cross-examination by lawyers representing the Senate and Prof Kindiki in the impeachment case.

Dr Gikonyo, founder and chief cardiologist at Karen Hospital, told the court he had treated Mr Gachagua since July 2006 and personally attended to him on the material day after he arrived at the hospital complaining of severe chest pain.

Conflicting admission timelines

“Stress can affect the heart,” he said while explaining the cardiological tests conducted on the patient, including ECG and echocardiogram tests, before recommending admission for between 48 and 72 hours for monitoring and treatment.

“He was received with chest pains and based on my experience those symptoms, depending on risk factors, may indicate a heart attack,” the doctor testified.

The courtroom atmosphere shifted sharply when Prof Kindiki’s lawyer began dissecting the hospital records line by line. 

The cross-examination focused on alleged conflicting admission timelines, missing supporting medical records and the use of the initials “R.G” instead of the patient’s full name in hospital records.

The lawyer also alleged inconsistencies in timelines contained in the affidavit and annexed discharge summary.

However, Dr Gikonyo stated that Mr Gachagua arrived at the hospital around 3 pm and was discharged on October 20, 2024. However, the discharge summary reflected admission at 4.18 pm and discharge on November 20, 2024.

“You have attempted to explain the discrepancies,” the lawyer told the witness.

“Not attempted but I have explained,” Dr Gikonyo replied.

Pressed on whether the explanations appeared anywhere in his affidavit, the doctor conceded they did not.

“No, it was not required and that is why the explanation was not given,” he said.

The exchanges became increasingly vigorous when the lawyer turned to the patient identification details in the hospital documents.

He pointed out that the records lacked a national identity card number, passport number or even the patient’s full name, but only a person named “R.G”.

Read: Gachagua impeachment was politically engineered to manage Mt Kenya politics, court told

“A document without patient name, identity number, we have no way of ascertaining who is the patient,” the lawyer submitted.

But Dr Gikonyo defended the records, saying the hospital deliberately used internal identifiers to protect patient confidentiality.

“It deliberately does not disclose the identity of the patient,” he said.

The courtroom also burst into laughter after the lawyer said the initials “R.G” could mean anything or someone else. Still, the doctor insisted the initials used in the records clearly referred to Rigathi Gachagua from his perspective as the treating physician.

“It may mean anything to others, but not to me as the doctor,” he remarked.

When the lawyer continued pressing him on the initials, Dr Gikonyo shot back firmly: “Ask me why I called the patient RG or why I used the initials.”

“Unfortunately it is me to choose the questions,” the lawyer responded, triggering more laughter inside the courtroom.

Another comic moment emerged during questioning by a Senate lawyer over whether the medical records had been presented before senators during impeachment proceedings.

Dr Gikonyo appeared increasingly frustrated by the legal questioning.

“I really don’t know why I am here,” he said candidly. “My understanding is that I am here to address medical issues, not legal or Senate issues.”

The doctor also confirmed that President William Ruto personally telephoned him during Mr Gachagua’s admission to inquire about his condition. He said he initially withheld detailed information until he obtained the patient’s consent.

The case is challenging the legality of Mr Gachagua’s impeachment and the subsequent appointment of Prof Kindiki as Deputy President.

Petitioners argue that Parliament breached Mr Gachagua’s right to a fair hearing by proceeding with impeachment while he was hospitalised. 

At the same time, the electoral commission argued that the Constitution gives the commission no formal role in filling a vacancy in the office of Deputy President, saying its involvement was limited to confirming whether a nominee appeared in the voter register. 

Its advocate told the court that providing such information was an administrative function lawfully handled by the secretariat even without commissioners in office.

For the National Assembly, its advocate argued that impeachment is a political and sui generis process whose judicial review is limited to testing compliance with constitutional procedures. 

He said Speaker Moses Wetang’ula properly satisfied himself that the impeachment motion met constitutional thresholds before allowing it to proceed for debate and voting in the House. The hearing continues.

[email protected]

Follow our WhatsApp channel for breaking news updates and more stories like this.