Former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua has moved to the Court of Appeal to challenge a High Court decision that upheld his impeachment, arguing that the process violated his constitutional rights. Gachagua filed the appeal against a June judgment delivered by Justices E.O. Ogola, A. Mrima and Dr. F. Mugambi.
Gachagua Challenges Senate Impeachment Decision
In his appeal, Gachagua argues that the High Court erred by holding that the Senate’s decision to remove him from office was final and could not be reversed through judicial review. He maintains that although the High Court identified violations of his rights to a fair hearing and fair administrative action during the impeachment process, it failed to provide an effective remedy.
Gachagua argues that constitutional rights, particularly the right to a fair trial, cannot be disregarded because of statutory timelines or the political nature of impeachment proceedings.
“No act in violation of the Constitution is outside the reach of the Courts,” his court papers state.
Dispute Over Article 145
The former Deputy President has also challenged the High Court’s interpretation of Article 145 of the Constitution, which outlines the procedure for removing a Deputy President from office. He argues that the court correctly recognised the importance of the investigatory stage of impeachment but later reached what he considers an unreasonable interpretation of how the constitutional provision should operate.
Gachagua Raises Public Participation Issue
Gachagua has further challenged the level of public participation during the impeachment proceedings in both the National Assembly and the Senate. He argues that the process failed to meet the constitutional threshold for meaningful public participation, citing previous Supreme Court jurisprudence that requires participation to be both qualitative and quantitative. He is also challenging Standing Order 64(2) of the National Assembly, arguing that the timelines provided under the rule limited adequate public participation and undermined his right to a fair hearing.
Kindiki Appointment Also Challenged
Another issue raised in the appeal concerns the appointment of Prof. Kithure Kindiki as Deputy President following Gachagua’s removal. Gachagua argues that the High Court was wrong to conclude that public participation was not constitutionally required during Kindiki’s nomination and approval under Article 149(1).
Dispute Over Written Judgment
A major part of Gachagua’s appeal relates to an alleged difference between the judgment delivered in open court and the written version later issued. He claims that during the live delivery of the judgment, the three-judge bench read additional paragraphs after paragraphs 484, 488, 503 and 508, but that the same passages were not included in the final written judgment. Gachagua argues that this amounted to an improper alteration of the judgment after it had been delivered and says the omission has denied him access to part of the court’s reasoning.
Gachagua Seeks Higher Damages
The former Deputy President is also dissatisfied with the KSh50 million awarded to him by the High Court as constitutional damages. He argues that the amount was inadequate to vindicate his rights, restore his dignity and discourage future constitutional violations. He further faults the High Court for failing to determine whether a Deputy President removed through an unconstitutional impeachment process would be entitled to retirement benefits.
What Gachagua Wants From the Court of Appeal
Gachagua is asking the Court of Appeal to overturn the Senate resolution of October 17, 2024, which removed him from office, and declare it unconstitutional, null and void. He is also seeking the remedies contained in his Further Amended Petition dated August 13, 2025.
Additionally, he wants the appellate court to direct the High Court to correct the official record and have the paragraphs he says were read in open court but omitted from the written judgment inserted into the judgment. Gachagua is also seeking the costs of the appeal as he continues his legal challenge against his impeachment.
