The High Court has upheld the impeachment of former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua, affirming that Parliament acted within the Constitution in removing him from office.
In a judgment delivered on Monday, June 8, at the Milimani Ceremonial Hall in Nairobi, a three-judge bench ruled that the process undertaken by the National Assembly and the Senate met the legal standards required in the impeachment of a Deputy President.
The court, comprising a three-judge bench of Justices Fred Ogola, Freda Mugambi, and Antony Mrima, found that the proceedings complied with constitutional provisions, including the right to a fair hearing, and that the threshold for removal from office had been met.
“There is no proof that MPs, Senators, and Speakers of the National Assembly and Senate were biased in Gachagua’s impeachment. The mere fact that MPs and Senators publicly supported or opposed the impeachment of Rigathi Gachagua cannot establish constitutional bias. The allegations of bias, pre-determination and conflict of interest advanced by the petitioners against Speakers of the National Assembly and Senate, MPs and Senators are not unsubstantiated,” Justice Ogolla stated
Judges held that Parliament exercised its oversight mandate within the law, dismissing claims that the process was unconstitutional or procedurally flawed.
The bench stated that impeachment is a constitutional mechanism available to Parliament, and where properly applied, courts will not interfere with the outcome.
Gachagua had challenged the impeachment, seeking to have it nullified on grounds that it violated his rights and failed to meet due process standards.
Court Upholds Parliamentary Process
In its findings, the court examined the conduct of the National Assembly in initiating and debating the motion, as well as the Senate’s role in hearing and determining the charges.
Also Read: Gachagua Confesses What Will Happen Tomorrow if Court Confirms Impeachment
The judges found that both Houses adhered to the required procedures, including giving the former Deputy President an opportunity to respond to the allegations.
According to the court, the timelines adopted were within acceptable legal limits and did not prejudice the defence.
The bench further held that the Senate properly exercised its quasi-judicial role, adequately considering the evidence and arguments presented before arriving at its decision.
The court ruled that there was no proof of bias or predetermined outcome, noting that the process remained within constitutional and legal boundaries throughout.
As a result, the judges declared that the impeachment stands and dismissed the petition in its entirety.
The ruling reinforces the authority of Parliament to hold senior state officers accountable, provided due process is followed.
Gachagua’s Arguments Before Court
In his petition, Gachagua argued that the impeachment process was unconstitutional and should be set aside.
Also Read: Treasury PS Kiptoo Backs Ruto’s Government on New Budget
He told the court that the proceedings in the National Assembly were rushed, denying him sufficient time to prepare and present his defence.
The former Deputy President also argued that the Senate failed to conduct an independent and impartial hearing, claiming that the outcome had been predetermined.
Through his lawyers, he maintained that key evidence was either improperly admitted or not fully considered, undermining the integrity of the process.
Gachagua further told the court that his right to a fair hearing was violated, including limited opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and challenge the case against him.
He argued that the impeachment was politically motivated and did not meet the constitutional threshold required to remove a sitting Deputy President.
The petition also questioned whether the allegations brought against him rose to the level required under the Constitution for removal from office.
However, the court found that these claims were not sufficient to invalidate the process, ruling that the standards of fairness and due process had been met.
Ahead of the ruling, Gachagua had earlier indicated on June 7 that he would pursue further legal action if the court ruled against him, saying he was prepared to seek redress at the Court of Appeal.
He stated that the Constitution provides for additional legal remedies and expressed confidence in the judicial process, noting that he was ready for any outcome the court would deliver.
At the same time, he urged his supporters to remain calm and peaceful regardless of the decision, warning against any form of unrest following the judgment.
Follow our WhatsApp Channel and X Account for real-time news updates.
