The High Court will commence hearings on October 29 for a petition seeking the removal of President William Ruto and Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua through a referendum.
Justice Bahati Mwamuye, presiding in the Nairobi High Court, scheduled the date to consider submissions from both petitioners and respondents.
The Kenya Bora Tuitakayo movement, led by governance expert Cyprian Nyamwamu and 13 other civil rights leaders, filed the petition on July 23. The petitioners are urging the court to instruct the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) to conduct a referendum by the end of next month.
Activists involved in the movement are advocating for Kenyans to decide whether Ruto and Gachagua should complete their five-year terms or be removed from office prematurely. They seek a court mandate for a referendum that would allow citizens to vote on the potential removal of the two leaders.
The petition alleges that Ruto and Gachagua have violated the constitution and the rights of the Kenyan people while undermining national sovereignty and damaging the economy with misguided policies.
The petitioners sued President Ruto, Deputy President Gachagua, the IEBC, and the Attorney General, among others.
The Senate and the Attorney General previously raised preliminary objections to the petition, but Justice Mwamuye ruled them unacceptable. In their objections, they argued that only Parliament holds the authority to remove the President and his deputy through impeachment.
However, lawyer Kibe Mungai, representing the petitioners, clarified that the petition does not dispute the impeachment process. “What the petition seeks to achieve is to hold the two accountable for violating the constitution while knowing they have captured Parliament,” he stated.
Mungai emphasized that the current state of Parliament leaves Kenyans with no option but to defend the Constitution and their sovereign power through direct action.
“The constitution is not powerless in the face of it being violated. It requires citizens to defend it by exercising power directly rendering an impotent and captured Parliament to continue with its toothlessness,” he asserted.
After their preliminary objections failed, the respondents requested to be re-served with the petition.
The court instructed all respondents and any interested parties who have not filed responses to do so within seven days from Tuesday.
