NAIROBI, Kenya, May 7 — The National Assembly has asked the High Court to order former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua to undergo a fresh medical examination to determine whether he was suffering from “severe chest pain” clinically consistent with a potential cardiac event, which allegedly led to his absence during his 2024 impeachment trial before the National Assembly.
Lawyers Eric Gumbo and Paul Nyamodi told a three-judge bench led by Eric Ogolla that they would withdraw the application if Gachagua withdrew an affidavit filed by Dan Gikonyo of Karen Hospital.
“It is common practice that when a professional gives an opinion on a subject matter, the defence can seek a second opinion by assessing the same subject matter. That is how we decided to prosecute this matter,” the lawyers told the court.
The development came after the judicial bench allowed the admission of Gachagua’s affidavit, in which Dr. Gikonyo claims that President William Ruto called him to inquire about Gachagua’s condition during Senate proceedings.
Lawyers representing the respondents in the impeachment proceedings involving Gachagua also asked the High Court to strike out a supplementary affidavit he recently filed, arguing that it was improperly introduced and contains untested allegations.
The legal teams opposing the affidavit argued that it was filed without the court’s permission and introduced new matters that were not part of the original impeachment record before the Senate.
President Ruto and Deputy President Kithure Kindiki have meanwhile indicated that they want to cross-examine Dr. Gikonyo over the contents of his affidavit.
Dr. Gikonyo testified that Gachagua had been admitted to hospital for between 48 and 72 hours. He further stated that President Ruto called him to inquire about Gachagua’s condition during the Senate proceedings.
Lawyers Muthomi Thiankolu and Adrian Kimotho, representing Ruto and Kindiki in their capacities as party leader and deputy party leader of the ruling United Democratic Alliance (UDA), argued that they must be allowed to cross-examine the cardiologist because their clients are adversely mentioned in the petition.
“My client is the biggest loser should this court rule in favour of the petition,” Muthomi submitted.
