Gachagua's impeachment case resumes

Justices Eric Ogola, Freda Mugambi and Justice Anthony Mrima during the hearing of a case challenging the impeachment of former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua on 7th May 2026 at the ceremonial hall, Milimani Law courts in Nairobi. [David Gichuru, Standard]

The hearing of a case challenging the impeachment of former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua has resumed before a three-judge High Court bench comprising Justices Eric Ogola, Freda Mugambi, and Anthony Mrima.

Gachagua’s legal team, led by Senior Counsel Paul Muite, argued that the National Assembly failed to conduct meaningful public participation before approving the impeachment motion.

Lawyer Andrew Muge told the court that the impeachment motion published on Parliament’s website lacked sufficient information for members of the public to make informed submissions.

“Each of the seven grounds provided does exactly the same thing. No information is provided for an ordinary citizen or my grandmother in Kimwaror to understand. If she were to make that tick, she would not know what she was responding to,” argued Muge.

He also questioned the transparency of the public participation process, arguing that Parliament’s online outreach attracted minimal engagement.

The lawyer further challenged claims that more than 30,000 Kenyans submitted views within two days, saying the figure was unrealistic and unsupported.

According to him, lawmakers debated and passed the motion before considering the public participation report tabled by Suba North MP Millie Odhiambo.

“Out of the 66 members who participated, only nine mention the views of their constituents. The reason being, that report sat at Parliament without anyone touching it,” he claimed.

Lawyer Shadrack Wambui, appearing for Sheria Mtaani, argued that the Senate violated the Constitution by failing to refer the impeachment motion to a special committee before debate by the full House.

He said Article 145 of the Constitution makes the formation of a special committee mandatory through the use of the word “shall.”

“The special committee is required to investigate the allegations and provide a report within 10 days. That process allows senators to understand the allegations and gives the person facing impeachment an opportunity to respond,” Wambui said.

He further argued that the Senate assumed powers not provided for in law and omitted a key constitutional step in the impeachment process.

Lawyer Kibe Mungai, representing the Mt Kenya Lawyers Lobby and Gema Watho, told the court the impeachment was politically motivated and aimed at settling political scores.

He also told court that initially, it had been planned that Sirisia MP John Waluke was the one to front the impeachment motion against Gachagua but graft cases in which he was acquitted shadowed his chances of success, thus, it was settled that Kibwezi West Mwengi Mutuse would take up the task.