Lawyers representing former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua have raised concerns over the integrity of a High Court judgment in the consolidated impeachment petitions, saying the version supplied to parties is incomplete and unsigned.
In a letter dated June 12, addressed to the Deputy Registrar of the Constitutional and Human Rights Division at the Milimani Law Courts, the legal team of Rigathi Gachagua raised concerns about discrepancies between the judgment read in court and the document subsequently issued.
“After delivery of the judgment we made an oral application to be furnished with, inter alia, a copy of the full judgment, typed proceedings and the audiovisual recording of the proceedings for perusal, review and for purposes of lodging an appeal,” stated the letter.
Lawyers Cite Claims of Missing Pages and Lack of Judges’ Signatures in Court Ruling
According to the lawyers, the three-judge bench, led by Justice E.O. Ogola, indicated during delivery on June 8 that the full judgment ran to 350 pages.
Also Read: Fresh Twist as Senate Turns to Dr Gikonyo to Counter Gachagua’s Impeachment & Blunder
The judges are also said to have read portions of the ruling in turns before appending their signatures at the end of the session.
However, the advocates say the copy provided to them on June 12 does not match that description. The lawyers further point out that the document produced contains 286 pages, rather than the 350 pages referenced in court, leaving a gap of 64 pages.
“We have, today (12th June, 2026) received judgment dated 8th June, 2026. From a glance at the judgment we note that firstly, the judgment is not signed by the Honourable Judges either at the end (page 286) or at any part whatsoever. Secondly, the judgment availed contains a paltry Two Hundred and Eighty Six (286) pages, as opposed to Three Hundred and Fifty (350) pages that His Lordship Justice E.O. Ogola informed the parties while in Court,” read the letter in part.
“It is crystal clear that a whopping 64 pages are missing from the judgment,” the letter adds, noting that no explanation has been provided for the reduced length.
Concerns Grow Over Differences Between Delivered Ruling and Issued Copy
According to Gachagua’s legal team, the absence of signatures and the missing pages raises questions about the validity and authenticity of the ruling.
They warned that any inconsistency between what was read in open court and what is issued to parties could affect confidence in the judicial process.
The lawyers have now asked the court to urgently provide a complete, signed copy of the judgment as delivered on June 8.
Also Read: Gachagua Gives Way Forward After Impeachment Judgment
They also indicated that they have yet to receive the additional materials requested after the ruling, including the typed proceedings and audiovisual recordings of the court session.
The team said it had decided to collect the footage, either by providing a storage device or by receiving it electronically.
Court Upholds Gachagua’s Impeachment
The High Court upheld the impeachment of Gachagua on June 8, ruling that Parliament acted within the Constitution in removing him from office.
In a decision delivered on June 8 at the Milimani Ceremonial Hall in Nairobi, a three-judge bench confirmed that both the National Assembly and the Senate followed the required legal procedures during the impeachment process.
The bench, comprising Justices Fred Ogola, Freda Mugambi, and Antony Mrima, found that the proceedings met constitutional standards, including the right to a fair hearing, and that the threshold for removing a deputy president had been properly met.
While delivering the ruling, the court stated that there was no evidence to show bias among Members of Parliament, Senators, or the Speakers of either House. The judges noted that public support for or opposition to the impeachment by lawmakers did not constitute constitutional bias.
“The mere fact that MPs and Senators publicly supported or opposed the impeachment cannot by itself prove bias,” the court ruled, dismissing claims of pre-determination and conflict of interest raised by the petitioners.
The judges further ruled that Parliament had exercised its oversight role lawfully, rejecting arguments that the process was unconstitutional or flawed.
According to the court, impeachment is a legitimate constitutional tool available to Parliament, and where it is properly applied, the courts will not interfere with its outcome.
Follow our WhatsApp Channel and X Account for real-time news updates.
