Kibwezi MP Mwengi Mutuse found himself under intense scrutiny on Wednesday evening as he defended his impeachment motion against Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua. The cross-examination led by Gachagua’s lawyers Elisha Ongoya and Tom Macharia aimed to dismantle the claims outlined in the motion presented to Parliament.
MP Mwengi Mutuse began by outlining the grounds for his impeachment motion, accusing the Deputy President of violating key sections of the Constitution of Kenya. He cited Gachagua’s public remarks, which likened Kenya to a company where only “shareholders” benefit from development projects. Mutuse argued that Kenya is not a company and that such rhetoric promotes division in the country.
ALSO READ: Three-Judge Bench Fails to Halt Gachagua’s Senate Impeachment Trial
“For the last two years, the DP has visited various regions, pushing the notion that Kenya is owned by shareholders,” said Mutuse.
He added that this narrative undermines national unity and is unconstitutional.
Gachagua’s lead lawyer Elisha Ongoya launched a sharp cross-examination challenging MP Mutuse’s allegations.
Kenya Kwanza “Shareholders” Remarks
In his opening statement, lawyer Ongoya characterised the allegations as ranging from “false” to “ridiculous” and even “embarrassing.” On Gachagua’s shareholders remarks, Ongoya cornered Mutuse by asking him to read clauses from the Kenya Kwanza coalition agreement, which explicitly outlines the shares awarded to constituent parties within President Ruto’s administration.
The cross-examination took a twist when Gachagua’s lawyer Tom Macharia introduced a video of President William Ruto addressing a crowd in Murang’a. In the footage, President Ruto referred to the Murang’a residents as “major shareholders” in his administration, a phrase that mirrors the language MP Mutuse used to criticize DP Gachagua.
Macharia questioned how Mutuse could target the Deputy President for repeating what the President had publicly stated. “When the DP assists the President in discussing shareholders, how does that become an impeachable offense?” Macharia asked.
At one point, Mr. Ongoya could be heard telling Hon. Mutuse, “It may be getting hotter but look at the document, compose yourself and read.”
Kayole Demolitions
Another key issue during the grilling involved Mutuse’s assertion that DP Gachagua violated Cabinet resolutions regarding the Kayole riparian land eviction and demolitions. Mutuse accused the Deputy President of disregarding due process during these evictions, which affected thousands of residents.
Ongoya pushed back, asking MP Mutuse if he was aware of any Cabinet resolution prohibiting public engagement during demolitions. The MP admitted he had no direct knowledge of such a resolution but stood by his claim, saying it was “in context.”
Ongoya: Did Cabinet approve a resolution not to engage citizens in demolitions?
Mutuse: I wouldn’t know because I’m not in Cabinet
Ongoya: And yet you’re saying that call by the Deputy President to engage citizens is part of the violation of the Cabinet resolution?
Mutuse: It is in context
Ongoya: I seek to know: the people who elected you, will they respect this behaviour here?
Mutuse: Mr Speaker I request your protection. The people of Kibwezi are not on trial.
The impeachment motion also included accusations of corruption, with claims that DP Gachagua had amassed a Ksh.5.2 billion fortune since taking office as the country’s second-in-command. Advocate Elisha Ongoya challenged Mutuse to substantiate the claims in his motion, demanding that the MP, who is also a lawyer, to explain how he and his team arrived at the Ksh.5.2 billion valuation.
Mutuse stumbled over his words and, despite multiple attempts to evade the question, eventually admitted that he had not presented direct evidence of corruption involving Gachagua’s companies, and that the figure was derived by estimating current land values and adding the worth of properties linked to Gachagua.
At one point, Gachagua’s legal team labeled Mutuse a “hostile witness” and questioned whether he was a property valuer or merely a lawyer.
