Former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua has taken his battle against his impeachment to the Court of Appeal, challenging a High Court decision that upheld his removal from office despite finding violations of some of his constitutional rights.
In his appeal, Gachagua argues that the Senate’s decision should not be treated as immune from judicial scrutiny where the impeachment process allegedly breached fundamental constitutional safeguards.
Highlights
- Gachagua has appealed the High Court ruling that upheld his impeachment.
- He says his rights to a fair hearing and fair administrative action were violated.
- He wants the Senate resolution removing him from office declared unconstitutional.
- He has challenged the adequacy of public participation during the impeachment process.
- He is also seeking corrections to alleged discrepancies between the oral and written judgments.
Main Story
Gachagua Challenges High Court Decision
Former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua has moved to the Court of Appeal seeking to overturn the High Court judgment that upheld his impeachment.
The appeal challenges a ruling delivered by Justices E.O. Ogola, A. Mrima and Dr. F. Mugambi in June, with Gachagua arguing that the judges made errors in their interpretation of constitutional protections surrounding impeachment.
At the centre of his case is the argument that constitutional violations cannot be shielded from judicial intervention simply because an impeachment process has been completed.
Fight Over Fair Hearing
Gachagua maintains that his constitutional right to a fair hearing was breached during the impeachment proceedings.
He argues that although the High Court identified violations relating to fair hearing and fair administrative action, it nevertheless concluded that the Senate’s impeachment decision was final and could not be reversed through judicial review.
According to Gachagua, constitutional rights should not be weakened by procedural deadlines or political considerations.
Dispute Over Article 145
The former Deputy President is also challenging how the High Court interpreted Article 145 of the Constitution, which outlines the process for removing a Deputy President from office.
He says the court was right to recognise the importance of the investigative stage and the role of a committee where evidence requires detailed examination.
However, he argues that the court subsequently arrived at a conclusion on the provision that was inconsistent with its own findings.
Public Participation Questioned
Another major issue in the appeal is public participation.
Gachagua claims that the National Assembly and Senate did not provide Kenyans with sufficient opportunity to participate meaningfully in the impeachment process.
He has relied on principles previously outlined by the Supreme Court, arguing that public participation should be substantive rather than merely procedural.
He is also challenging National Assembly Standing Order 64(2), saying the timelines provided under the rule restricted adequate public participation and affected his ability to receive a fair hearing.
Kindiki Appointment Also Challenged
Gachagua’s appeal goes beyond his own removal.
He is also contesting the High Court’s findings regarding the nomination and approval of Prof. Kithure Kindiki as Deputy President.
Gachagua argues that the court was wrong to conclude that public participation was not constitutionally required during the process under Article 149(1).
Alleged Oral and Written Judgment Discrepancy
One of the more unusual aspects of the appeal involves the judgment itself.
Gachagua claims that several paragraphs were read out when the three judges delivered their decision in open court, which was broadcast live, but were later missing from the written version.
He alleges that four additional paragraphs, said to have followed paragraphs 484, 488, 503 and 508, were not included in the judgment eventually issued.
His lawyers argue that this amounted to an improper alteration of the judgment after it had already been delivered.
They further contend that the omission has denied Gachagua access to reasoning that was allegedly presented in open court.
KSh50 Million Damages
The appeal also challenges the compensation awarded by the High Court.
Although the court awarded Gachagua KSh50 million in constitutional damages, he argues that the amount did not adequately address the alleged violations or restore his dignity.
He further faults the court for failing to declare the impeachment unconstitutional, arguing that such a declaration would have provided stronger constitutional protection against similar violations in future.
Gachagua also wants the Court of Appeal to determine whether a Deputy President removed through an unconstitutional impeachment process would be entitled to retirement benefits.
What Gachagua Wants
In his appeal, Gachagua is asking the Court of Appeal to declare the Senate resolution passed on October 17, 2024, removing him from office 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 send the High Court judgment back for correction of the record.
He is asking that the High Court Registrar be directed to insert the portions he says were read during the live delivery of the judgment but left out of the written decision, within 14 days.
Gachagua is also seeking the costs of the appeal.
Gachagua’s latest move keeps his impeachment battle alive but whether the Court of Appeal will overturn the Senate decision could reshape the legal and political debate surrounding the removal of senior state officials.
