Court row deepens as Kindiki seeks to question doctor over Gachagua treatment

The legal fight over Rigathi Gachagua’s impeachment has escalated after Deputy President Kithure Kindiki moved to challenge explosive medical claims linking President William Ruto to the former deputy president’s hospitalisation during the Senate proceedings that removed him from office.

Kindiki is now seeking permission to have cardiologist Daniel Gikonyo questioned in court over an affidavit detailing Gachagua’s treatment and an alleged phone call from the president.

The fresh application places the medical evidence at the centre of the constitutional petitions seeking to overturn Gachagua’s impeachment.

Filed before the Constitutional and Human Rights Division, the application comes shortly after a three-judge bench declined an earlier request by Kindiki to remove the affidavit and hospital records from the court file.

Through lawyer Muthomi Thiankolu, the deputy president argues that the evidence introduced by Dr Gikonyo raises contested issues that should not be decided through written affidavits alone.

Kindiki wants the cardiologist cross-examined on “the preparation, timing, authenticity, accuracy and prior non-disclosure” of the medical documents attached to his affidavit.

“The affidavit and the medical records annexed thereto were never presented before the Senate during the impeachment proceedings,” Thiankolu states in court documents.

According to the filings, the records were only introduced nearly one-and-a-half years after the Senate proceedings and after the petitioners had already completed their submissions in court.

“The affidavit belatedly raises contested factual issues that cannot fairly or satisfactorily be resolved solely based on affidavit evidence,” Thiankolu says.

The latest move has intensified the political and legal standoff between Kindiki and Gachagua since the former Interior Cabinet Secretary replaced him as deputy president following the Senate vote.

The dispute has also drawn President Ruto into the ongoing court battle after Dr Gikonyo disclosed details of an alleged call from the Head of State while Gachagua was admitted at Karen Hospital on October 17, 2024.

“While the first petitioner was under my care, I received a telephone call from the President of the Republic of Kenya, H.E William Ruto, who inquired as to the first petitioner’s condition,” Dr Gikonyo stated.

“I confirmed that the first petitioner had indeed been admitted at Karen Hospital, Nairobi and was receiving treatment under my care.”

If the judges approve the request for cross-examination, proceedings could shift into a politically delicate inquiry over what the president knew about Gachagua’s medical condition as the Senate impeachment hearings continued.

The hospital records have become a key part of the case filed by Gachagua and 40 co-petitioners challenging the legality of the impeachment.

The petitioners maintain that the Senate violated constitutional protections by proceeding with deliberations despite being informed that Gachagua had been admitted in hospital.

In his affidavit, Dr Gikonyo told the court that Gachagua was admitted at around 3pm on October 17, 2024 after complaining of severe chest pain linked to a suspected cardiac condition.

The cardiologist said he carried out multiple examinations, including blood tests, electrocardiogram assessments and cardiological reviews before recommending hospital admission lasting between 48 and 72 hours.

Medical records attached to the affidavit indicate that Gachagua remained admitted until October 20, 2024.

The petitioners say Gachagua’s lawyer Paul Muite informed the Senate about the hospitalisation, but lawmakers still pushed ahead with the impeachment process.

Lawyers representing Gachagua and the co-petitioners have repeatedly argued that the impeachment was politically motivated and aimed at removing a powerful Mt Kenya political figure ahead of the 2027 General Election.

During recent court submissions, the petitioners accused Parliament of abandoning constitutional safeguards and acting under influence from the Executive during the impeachment proceedings.