Lawyers defending the process told the court that attempts to compare the Senate to a tribunal were misguided, arguing that the Senate performs a unique constitutional oversight role that is distinct from judicial or quasi-judicial bodies.
“The Senate handled the proceedings in accordance with the Constitution,” lawyers representing the Senate submitted.
The court was further told that the Senate’s impeachment function is a special oversight mandate provided for under the Constitution and should be viewed within that framework rather than through the standards applied to ordinary tribunals.
“There was no illegality in procuring the impeachment motion on 16th and 17th. The perception of a six-month timeline to discuss the motion is null and void,” the Senate argued.
The submissions were made as the court continued hearing petitions challenging the impeachment process, with parties debating whether the Senate adhered to constitutional and procedural requirements during the proceedings.
Yesterday, lawyers representing the National Assembly also defended the impeachment proceedings, arguing that the process was time-bound under the Constitution and had to be conducted within the timelines provided by law.
They maintained that the National Assembly undertook adequate public participation, including publishing notices in both English and Swahili to allow Kenyans to submit their views before the debate and
