Rigathi Gachagua asks the High Court to void his impeachment and order compensation, full deputy president benefits, medical cover and pension, raising fears of huge costs to taxpayers.
Former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua’s impeachment case has taken an unexpected financial turn, with his legal team asking the High Court to award him compensation and his full benefits after he was removed from office in 2024.
The demand for damages could significantly enlarge the cost of the impeachment process for the state, if the court accepts the argument that the process was unconstitutional and carried out in bad faith.. In yesterday’s hearing at Milimani, Gachagua’s lawyers also asked judges to set aside the impeachment and rule that impeachment cannot be applied to actions that took place before the process began.
Gachagua’s approach marks a shift in strategy.. His side dropped the push to return him to office and instead asked the court to declare the impeachment unconstitutional, set it aside, and order full benefits due to a deputy president.. The petition also widens to name Senate Speaker Amason Kingi, National Assembly Speaker Moses Wetang’ula, and Gachagua’s successor, Prof Kithure Kindiki.
Beyond the personal claim, the case is now being framed as a potential test of how far Parliament’s powers can go when constitutional procedures are challenged.. If judges rule in his favour, the public purse could end up meeting the bill.. The deputy president’s benefits and the office costs, spread across a five-year term, have been estimated at about Sh16.5 billion.. While those figures relate to the full term, Gachagua’s immediate claim focuses on a specific package that his lawyers say is owed.
His lawyers put the immediate figure at Sh66.4 million, described as covering salary, airtime and gratuity.. They also asked the court to grant medical cover, pension, and the complete benefits package attached to a retired deputy president.. The bigger picture, however, is what happens if the court orders compensation in a manner that mirrors the duration and value of the office itself.
In court, Paul Muite, one of Gachagua’s senior lawyers, argued that the process was not only unlawful but designed in a way that kept Gachagua sidelined from the core mechanisms of fairness.. Muite used a striking analogy, saying his client was treated like “a sheep in a court of hyenas,” contending that Parliament’s side was heard while his client’s account was largely shut out.
Muite told the judges that both chambers were not acting neutrally.. He said Wetang’ula and Kingi were part of what he described as a power-sharing arrangement—likened to shareholding—which, in his view, shaped incentives to pursue Gachagua’s removal.. He also argued that Gachagua’s opponents moved with speed and certainty, including around the timing and structure of the Senate stage.
A major plank of the argument concerned public participation and timing.. Muite said the public participation exercise was not meaningful, pointing to how it was allegedly limited to invited participants rather than open and robust engagement.. He criticised the speed at which the National Assembly and Senate advanced, describing the process as “rushed at breakneck speed,” and questioned why the timeline left little room for proper consideration.
He further argued that the rules of natural justice were breached, claiming that the Senate could not bypass committee stages and proceed as if the resolution had already been settled.. Muite also told the court that Gachagua was effectively given insufficient time to respond, while the motion’s sponsor, Mwengi Mutuse, had more time to present the case.. In his view, the uneven time allocation contributed to an unfair hearing.
Another complaint focused on Gachagua’s health.. Muite told the judges that when Gachagua fell ill, Parliament nevertheless proceeded with the impeachment, and that the process moved forward on five of the 11 charges.. He argued that impeachment should be treated as a last resort under the Constitution, not as a tool for resolving political disagreements.
Muite also attacked the evidentiary basis of the charges.. He argued that not every constitutional violation amounts to a gross violation that can sustain impeachment, and that the charges were vague and lacking particulars.. He pointed to an example involving ground eight and said it remained anchored on laws that had been nullified years earlier in relation to the criticism of the kind Gachagua had been linked to.
In the National Assembly motion, Muite also challenged the underpinning facts, including allegations built on claims about wealth and company ownership.. He described the proceedings as being driven by hearsay and what he called mob justice, adding that the process went beyond Gachagua and pulled his family into the fallout.
From a constitutional framing, his argument was that Parliament acted as both accuser and decision-maker rather than allowing other legal pathways to play out.. He suggested that prosecution in court or a referral to the National Cohesion and Integration Commission (NCIC) would have been the proper course for certain allegations, instead of using impeachment as the mechanism.
In the Senate proceedings, Gachagua’s lawyers maintained that the upper house relied on the stated right to a fair hearing while still denying him the opportunity to respond with evidence to the motion.. Muite further told the court that the transmission of a final decision happened at midnight, and he questioned how the National Assembly Speaker could anticipate the Senate’s decision in advance.
Teresiah Wanjiru Kimotho, another member of the legal team, presented a different emphasis, telling the judges that the impeachment undermined the people’s mandate.. She claimed that Parliament failed to apply the same level of scrutiny used when leaders are elected, and raised issues around payments made to MPs and Senators during the process—allegations she described as being in the public domain.
The case also places the Attorney General at the centre of the legal arguments, according to the submissions made in court.. Kimotho suggested that multiple actors had already made up their minds, and she tied that claim to an existing court order from the Kerugoya High Court, which her side says was ignored.
For ordinary Kenyans, the unfolding dispute now carries a practical consequence that goes beyond constitutional theory.. If judges agree that the impeachment was flawed and compensation is ordered, taxpayers could effectively pay for what the petitioners call a process that should not have happened.. The case could also shape how future impeachment motions are structured—particularly around timeframes, participation, and the point at which Parliament decides it has enough evidence to proceed.
As the hearing continues, the court’s decision may determine whether the impeachment stands as a legitimate constitutional outcome or is overturned with financial and political ramifications that could last far beyond the initial removal.