Activist moves to appeal ruling on judges’ recusal in Kindiki ouster case
Through his lawyer Harrison Kinyanjui, Aura now argues that the issue of recusal remains unresolved. He claims the reconstitution of the three-judge bench raises legitimate questions of impartiality.
Activist Joseph Aura has taken the first step toward appealing a High Court decision that declined to remove a three-judge bench from a petition he filed seeking the ouster of Deputy President Kithure Kindiki.
Aura has officially issued a notice of appeal, signalling his intention to challenge the ruling by Justices Eric Ogolla, Anthony Mrima and Freda Mugambi, who dismissed his application for their recusal in the politically sensitive case tied to the impeachment of former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua.
More To Read
- Seven arrested over Kariobangi North church chaos as police pursue more suspects
- Gachagua rattles political scene with push for DCP-only candidates in Nairobi in 2027 polls
- Chief Justice Koome calls for stronger East Africa judicial collaboration
- Tear gas, running battles rock Kariobangi North as rival groups clash during Gachagua church visit
- Kimani Ichung’wa blames Opposition losses on ‘tribal’ campaign messaging
- Supreme Court to receive title deed by December 25, says DP Kithure Kindiki
Aura had accused the judges of bias, insisting their continued participation "would compromise the integrity of the proceedings."
However, the bench ruled that his claims were unsubstantiated and failed to meet the legal standard required for judicial disqualification.
Through his lawyer Harrison Kinyanjui, Aura now argues that the issue of recusal remains unresolved. He claims the reconstitution of the three-judge bench raises legitimate questions of impartiality.
"A previous Court of Appeal decision made it clear that the initial empanelling of this bench was irregular, as only the Chief Justice can assign judges to such matters," Kinyanjui said, referring to concerns earlier raised about the role of Deputy Chief Justice Philomena Mwilu in forming the initial bench.
Despite the Court of Appeal's observations, Chief Justice Martha Koome went on to reappoint the same judges. Aura argues that this sequence of events "is sufficient to shake public confidence in the fairness and transparency of the proceedings."
Kinyanjui further revealed that he had petitioned the Chief Justice to consider appointing a five-judge bench to hear the matter. "A broader and properly constituted bench would have restored public confidence, but instead the file was sent back to the same three judges," he said, adding that this decision "inevitably influences the direction of the case."
In the upcoming appeal, Aura seeks orders barring Justices Mrima, Ogolla and Mugambi from handling any part of the petition, insisting that their continued involvement may prejudice a case with significant constitutional ramifications.
His legal team also warned that the petition touches on sensitive questions concerning presidential fitness for office. They noted that if President William Ruto were, hypothetically, to be found unfit during the proceedings, Article 146(2)(a) could be triggered, potentially plunging the country into a constitutional crisis.
"This is not just a routine petition—its implications could be far-reaching and affect the highest office in the land," Kinyanjui cautioned.
Top Stories Today
