Famous Prophet Who Allegedly Prophesied Raila's Death Predicts 2027 Outcomes, Sparks Debate

Deputy President Kithure Kindiki has moved to court seeking direct permission to personally cross-examine the medical expert who submitted key evidence in the ongoing legal battle challenging the impeachment of Rigathi Gachagua.

The request has been filed in the High Court within proceedings linked to the petition contesting the Senate’s decision that led to Gachagua’s removal from office, a case that continues to raise both legal and political questions about how far courts can interrogate parliamentary processes.

At the center of Kindiki’s application is a supplementary affidavit sworn by Gachagua’s doctor, who presented medical findings meant to support claims that the former deputy president’s health condition played a role in the timeline surrounding his impeachment.

Kindiki argues that the issues raised in the medical testimony go beyond written affidavits and require oral cross-examination in open court to test their accuracy, timing, and credibility.

He particularly questions why the medical evidence was introduced long after the Senate proceedings had concluded, and why it was not presented during the impeachment hearings when it could have been scrutinized by Parliament.

The court has also been asked to consider when exactly the medical reports were prepared and under what circumstances the conclusions were reached, given that they relate to events said to have occurred in October 2024.

According to court filings, the doctor claims to have examined Gachagua and identified possible cardiac-related concerns, with treatment and discharge reportedly taking place within days of the assessment.

Gachagua’s legal team is relying on the medical narrative to argue that his removal from office was procedurally flawed and failed to fully account for his health condition at the time of the impeachment vote.

Kindiki, however, insists that such claims must be subjected to rigorous questioning rather than accepted through written affidavits alone, especially in a case with significant constitutional implications.

The matter now places the court at the center of a broader legal debate on whether evidence introduced after parliamentary proceedings can be used to challenge decisions already made by the legislature.

A ruling on the application will determine whether the doctor will be summoned for oral cross-examination, a move that could further intensify one of the most closely watched political-legal disputes in recent weeks.