Meru Governor Kawira Mwangaza has faced a significant legal setback after the High Court upheld the Senate’s resolution to remove her from office.
In its ruling, the court affirmed that the Senate followed constitutional procedures throughout the impeachment process. It dismissed Mwangaza’s claims of irregularities, citing a lack of sufficient evidence to substantiate her allegations.
Furthermore, the court directed that all constitutional provisions regarding the vacancy left by her removal should be implemented within the designated timelines.
A key point in the ruling was the court’s determination that the Senate had not violated any existing court orders. Mwangaza had argued that the impeachment proceedings proceeded despite pending legal actions meant to halt the process. However, the judges found no credible proof that the Senate had disregarded any valid judicial directive.
“The Senate could not have acted in defiance of orders that were never properly presented before it,” the ruling stated. The court emphasized that if Mwangaza sought to halt the proceedings, she should have formally obtained and submitted the relevant court orders. Since no concrete evidence of contempt was provided, the impeachment remained valid.
On the issue of public participation, the court reiterated that while it is a constitutional requirement, it is primarily conducted at the county level during an impeachment process, rather than at the Senate stage. Mwangaza had challenged her removal on the grounds of inadequate public involvement, but the court refrained from making a final determination, noting that the matter was still under consideration in a separate case before the Meru Court.
The ruling also examined whether due process had been observed during the impeachment. Mwangaza claimed that she was only given two minutes to defend herself, which she argued denied her a fair hearing. However, the court found that official records showed she was indeed granted the opportunity to present her case.
“Whether she chose to remain silent or not did not alter the fact that she was given a chance to defend herself,” the ruling read.
The judges concluded that there was no evidence to support claims that she was denied adequate time to speak. Additionally, her legal team had not raised any objections regarding the time allocated for her defense. As a result, the court ruled that the impeachment process adhered to all procedural and constitutional requirements, solidifying Mwangaza’s removal from office.
