'He is my friend': DP Kindiki denies any role in Gachagua impeachment

Deputy President Prof. Kithure Kindiki has clarified that there is no bad blood between him and his predecessor, Rigathi Gachagua.

Addressing the media on Thursday night, the DP disputed claims of a perceived rift between him and the impeached former DP, a month after he assumed office of the country’s second-in-command.

Prof. Kindiki reiterated that he and Gachagua have long been allies and rubbished reports of having a hand in his impeachment.

“It would be improper for me to compare myself to anyone who previously occupied this office or with the former deputy president. I have no reason to antagonize anybody,” he said.

“Leadership is defined by certain ethos and parameters and allow me not to discuss my brother Rigathi Gachagua because he is my friend and you have not heard me bad-mouthing him anywhere before, when he was in office or even after he left office, it is wrong."

DP Kindiki recused himself from the troubles Gachagua faced prior to his ouster, saying his removal is still the subject of a court decision.

According to the former Interior Cabinet Secretary, the Supreme Court pronounced itself in the case, and hence the impeachment was a matter of judicial judgment.

Citing the case of embattled Meru Governor Kawira Mwangaza who has survived two impeachment cases, Kindiki argued that judgements should not be compared because they are subject to unique “court injunctions.”

“The two cases were beneficiaries of court injunctions. The only difference is in one, after the interparty hearing of the matter around whether or not the injunction should be preserved,” he said.

“In one case, the court found the injunction needed to be lifted while in the other the court found that there was no need to lift the injunction and it happens in courts all the time not just in Kenya but all over the world. In fact, the finding of the court is in many times overturned by the next court the following day whatsoever, and so there is no inconsistency; that is judicial practices.”

The DP added: “Even in a bench of three judges, one judge would say this, two others would say different things on the same subject matter, same articles, same evidence, same parties but that is the independence of the Judiciary; every judge carries decisional independence.”