The court heard that the public participation conducted on October 4 and 5, 2026, at Bomas of Kenya during the impeachment proceedings was neither adequate nor meaningful, and therefore fell short of the requirements set out in the Constitution.
“My lords and lady, the National Assembly’s public participation at the Bomas of Kenya was presided over by selected people led by ODM,” SC Muite submitted.
Muite told the bench that the process was flawed, alleging that it did not provide a fair and inclusive platform for public input.
He argued that the manner in which the exercise was conducted undermined its credibility and failed to reflect the views of a broad cross-section of Kenyans.
According to the submissions, public participation is a fundamental constitutional requirement, particularly in processes involving the removal of a senior state officer.
The legal team maintained that any shortcomings in this aspect render the entire process legally questionable.
The bench was further told that the limited scope of the exercise and the alleged involvement of selected individuals compromised its integrity.
Muite argued that the process appeared to have been controlled in a way that excluded diverse opinions.
Gachagua is challenging the legality of his impeachment, with his legal team raising several issues, including alleged violations of due process and constitutional safeguards.
The question of whether the public participation exercise met the required threshold is one of the key issues the court is expected to determine in the case.
On the other hand, parties supporting the impeachment are expected to defend the process, arguing that it complied with constitutional and legal requirements.
The case has drawn significant attention, given its implications for constitutional interpretation and the standards required in the impeachment of senior public officials.