President William Ruto, through his lawyer Fred Ngatia, mounted a strong defense on Monday, seeking to have a case aimed at impeaching him through a referendum dismissed.
Ngatia argued that President Ruto is constitutionally immune from criminal or civil lawsuits while in office. He further contended that the case, filed by 14 human rights activists and lawyers led by Cyprian Nyamwamu and Khelef Khalifa, was leading the judiciary into uncharted legal territory.
“I request you to hold and find this was a dangerous pastime. They had a day in court, and it should come to an end,” Ngatia stated.
Activists Accuse Ruto of Violating Constitution
However, lawyer Kibe Mungai countered that the case sought to hold the president accountable for corruption, mismanagement of government resources, oppressive taxation, and extrajudicial killings of anti-government protesters who took to the streets over the high cost of living.
Mungai argued that the power to elect and remove a president ultimately rests with the people and can be exercised through a referendum. He clarified that the case was not an attempt to remove President Ruto through the Judiciary but rather to establish whether the president had violated the Constitution 31 times.
According to Kibe, Parliament has become an extension of the presidency, with lawmakers reduced to mere puppets who are unable to hold the Head of State accountable or initiate impeachment proceedings.
He cited Gen-Z-led protests as a clear indication that Kenyans, as the ultimate employers, have the right to remove a president through democratic means beyond a coup.
“Today, we are dealing with a minor event. The petitioners are not asking the Judiciary to remove the president. Instead, they seek a declaration that the president has violated the Constitution about 30 times.
“Is it the court’s role to declare constitutional violations? Yes.
“Will the High Court remove the president? No. If a violation is confirmed, the matter should be put to a referendum, allowing the people—not the court—to decide his fate,” Kibe argued.
Sovereignty Belongs to the People
The lawyer further emphasized that sovereignty belongs to the people, who exercise it by electing the president and MPs while delegating power to judges and magistrates. He insisted that while legal structures exist for removing public officials, the ultimate authority to fire them remains with the people and can be exercised directly.
Kibe underscored that Kenyans were seeking a peaceful and democratic approach to removing President Ruto from office.
“Although African laws provide for impeachment, the process is practically impossible because the president has captured Parliament and turned it into his tool.
“We talk about Gen-Z protests as a way of exercising power in a responsible and democratic manner. In West Africa, presidents who captured Parliament were overthrown by the military.
“Can Kenyans be stopped from removing a rogue president? No, they cannot be stopped,” Kibe asserted.
Kibe also argued that the president could be sued in person in an impeachment case, maintaining that the Attorney General (AG) cannot represent him. He emphasized that the AG’s duty is to defend both the government and the people, not the president as an individual.
Initially, the group had sued both President Ruto and his ousted deputy, Rigathi Gachagua.
The petitioners are urging the court to compel the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) to conduct a referendum, allowing Kenyans to decide whether to remove President Ruto from office.
“The president has run the government in a manner that has interfered with the management of health, markets, land rates, livestock, cows, and chickens,” the petitioners claim.
The court’s ruling on this case could set a historic precedent for presidential accountability in Kenya.
