- Activist Enock Aura vowed to appeal after a panel of three judges rejected his request to ask them to recuse themselves from the case challenging the removal of former vice president Rigathi Gachagua
- The judges, led by Eric Ogolla, rejected Aura’s request, ruling that she failed to prove bias
- Aura, through lawyer Harrison Kinyanjui, insists that the panel was improperly reappointed and has indicated its urgent appeal to the Court of Appeal
An activist pushing for the removal from office of Deputy President Kithure Kindiki due to his unconstitutional appointment has indicated his intention to appeal the decision of a panel of three judges to reject his request to ask them to withdraw from the case related to the dismissal of Rigathi Gachagua.
Source: Twitter
Through lawyer Harrison Kinyanjui, Enock Aura told the Court that he will go to the Court of Appeal to challenge the decision given by judges Eric Ogolla, Antony Mrima and Fredah Mugambi after he refused to withdraw from the case where the removal of Gachagua as deputy president is contested.
A three-judge bench dismissed the petition filed by Aura, saying that she failed to prove the allegation of favoritism against them.
“We, therefore, find and hold that the petitioner has failed to establish a reasonable apprehension of prejudice on the part of this bench. The petition dated October 1, 2025, is hereby dismissed,” Ogolla ruled.
However, Aura has now vowed to take the fight to the Court of Appeal.
Shortly after the decision was issued, through his lawyer Kinyanjui, the activist told the court about his immediate intention to challenge the decision.
“I want to send two requests. The first request is to request that I reject the appeal against your decision. Previously I have requested from 29 May 2025 for confirmed cases with the need to appeal against the same decision, which is mentioned in your decision. Until today, I have not received any communication from the DR, to facilitate the appeal process,” Kinyanjui said.
Aura had asked for the rejection of the judges mentioned above, accusing them of bias.
However, the activist’s lawyer said that the panel was improperly reappointed by the Chief Justice Martha Koomedespite the decision of the Court of Appeal to criticize its previous decision and confirm that only the CJ had the authority to form such a panel.
Kinyanjui said the appellate court’s annulment of the original appointment of judges to rule on the consolidated applications has raised legitimate doubts about their fairness and equity.
“Otherwise, the order that justice must not only be done, but also be seen to be done will remain violated and undoubtedly, there will be a memory in the minds of the public that the Judges have taken an unfounded and incomprehensible reason to stick to this Petition and conduct their decision in a way that affects access to justice in an impartial manner,” the court papers read in part.
In his petition to have Kindiki removed from office, Aura’s lawyer asked the judges to recuse themselves, saying that their procedural step of separating his case from that filed by Gachagua and 39 others amounted to clear and unconstitutional bias and a planned attempt to undermine his case.
He had submitted that he had formally requested the chief justice to expand the 3-Judge bench to at least 5 judges, due to the serious constitutional issues that his Petition had raised and that the chief justice had accepted this request and the prosecutor to include the other Petitioners in the consolidated Petition.
The Bank had refused to engage the other Applicants, resulting in its Withdrawal application.
Aura said that an ordinary Kenyan would interpret this as clear favoritism and an attempt to exclude the extension of the bench, which, according to him, was a show of great interest in the case by the bench.
While ruling on behalf of the bench, Justice Ogolla said that Aura’s charges were baseless and did not rise to the legal standard required to justify rejection.
Aura had argued that court orders had separated her petition from other consolidated petitions that raised similar issues, but the Justices dismissed the claim, noting that the separation of the cases was initiated by Aura herself in January of this year.
Aura was quick to explain to the court that what she objected to in the consolidation order affecting her petition was that her petition would be set aside, and would remain heard within the consolidated petitions as the judges had directed that “additional applications in group 3 would await the outcome of the Judgment in the consolidated application”.
He asked the court to hear his petition together with the joint petitions, but not separately as they decided.
In the court documents, Kinyanjui further emphasized that if the President William Ruto will be declared mentally ill or unfit to hold office, the country may plunge into a major constitutional crisis.
He noted that if the president fails to function or is deemed unfit while the case is still ongoing, Article 146(2)(a) of the constitution will be triggered immediately.
Read ENGLISH VERSION
Do you have an exciting story that you would like us to publish? Please contact us via news@tuko.co.ke or WhatsApp: 0732482690.
Source: TUKO.co.ke
