A three-judge bench hearing the impeachment case of former deputy president Rigathi Gachagua has been told that the National Assembly Speaker, Moses Wetang’ula, was not biased during the impeachment process.

Through his lawyers, Wetang’ula argues that what he did was simply to comply with the rules that had timelines stating that compliance does not amount to expeditious or fast-tracked disposal of the proceedings.

He has stated that the court should note the speaker of the National Assembly does not at any time participate in the August House proceedings, but he is merely the presiding officer of the house. 

“My lords and my lady, the allegations by the petitioners that the speaker was biased against the first petitioner (Gachagua) are indeed untrue and incorrect,” Wetangula’s lawyers submitted.

Further, the bench heard that the views of the speaker presiding over the house do not have any influence on the proceedings in the National Assembly, and of importance, the impeachment proceedings are determined by votes of members of Parliament, not his.

“My lords and my lady, the speaker of the National Assembly at no point in time did vote in these proceedings. In presiding over the house, my lords and my lady, the speaker was undertaking a constitutional duty as prescribed by the constitution,” Wetang’ula’s lawyer submitted to the bench.

“Under the standing orders of the National Assembly, the speaker is expressly prohibited from voting. And for the record, let me refer to standing order 69(1) of the National Assembly that states, ‘Unless otherwise provided under the constitution, a question arising in the house shall be decided by a majority of members in the house present and voting,” Wetang’ula’s legal team added.

Notably, the court heard that it was unfair for the petitioners to complain against the speaker presiding over the house since he has no vote and does not participate in the decision-making of the august House.

He has also dismissed the allegation that he was biased because he is a member of the Kenya Kwanza Coalition and by virtue of that association; therefore, he ought not to have presided over the house.

In addition, the court has been urged to note that the mover of the motion, Kibwezi West member of Parliament Mwengi Mutuse, presented the motion as an individual member of Parliament, adding that the motion was not presented by the Kenya Kwanza Coalition. 

According to Wetang’ula, the petitioner himself (Gachagua) was a member of the Kenya Kwanza Coalition, and if there was any favour, then that would emanate from association, and he ought to have been the beneficiary.