The impeachment of former Deputy President, Rigathi Gachagua marked a defining moment in Kenya’s constitutional history. For the first time under the 2010 Constitution, a sitting Deputy President was removed from office through a process that moved from Parliament to the courts and ultimately settled into law. While the legal framework guided every step, what unfolded was also a deeply human and political process that revealed the pressures, tensions, and realities of high office.
The proceedings in the National Assembly began with the tabling of multiple charges against former Deputy President, Rigathi Gachagua, including allegations of constitutional violations, undermining state institutions, and promoting divisive politics. Members debated the motion with a mix of legal reasoning and political conviction. When the vote was taken, an overwhelming majority supported the impeachment. That outcome immediately shifted the matter to the Senate, where the process took on a more judicial tone.
In the Senate, presided over by Amason Kingi, the proceedings were structured, formal, and closely followed across the country. The Senate proceedings carried a different atmosphere. Presided over by Amason Kingi, the chamber took on the character of a courtroom. There was structure, order, and a clear attempt to ground the process in law. Lawyers spoke with precision, senators listened with visible focus, and every step followed a set procedure. Yet even within that structure, the human element was impossible to ignore.
Former Deputy President, Rigathi Gachagua’s legal team approached the proceedings with urgency. They challenged the substance of the accusations and, just as strongly, the way the process was being conducted. They argued that the timeline was too compressed for a matter of such gravity, and that their client was being required to defend himself under conditions that were not conducive to a full and fair response. There was a clear effort to remind the Senate that beyond the office, there was an individual whose political career and public reputation were at stake.
That tension became more pronounced when former Deputy President, Rigathi Gachagua fell ill during the hearings. His absence from the chamber, due to hospitalization, shifted the tone of the proceedings. His lawyers asked for more time, arguing that his physical condition directly affected his ability to participate in his own defence. It was not framed as a delay tactic, but as a question of fairness. The Senate, however, declined to adjourn. The reasoning was grounded in constitutional timelines, that the process could not be paused indefinitely.
This moment captured the central tension of the entire impeachment: the law moving forward as required, even when the circumstances were less than ideal. To some, it demonstrated institutional firmness. To others, it raised difficult questions whether strict adherence to timelines came at the expense of practical fairness. Either way, the proceedings continued.
When the Senate eventually voted, it upheld several of the charges. The decision was enough to confirm the impeachment and remove the former Deputy President, Rigathi Gachagua, from office. It was a formal conclusion to the parliamentary phase, but it did not feel like an end. Instead, it shifted the focus to the judiciary, where the question was no longer political, but constitutional. At this stage, the tone changed again. The courtroom was not concerned with political alignment or parliamentary numbers. Its role was narrower, but no less significant: to determine whether the process that led to the impeachment met the standards required by the Constitution.
Following the Senate’s decision, the matter was challenged before a three-judge bench of the High Court, comprising Justice Eric Ogola, Justice Anthony Mrima, and Justice Dr. Freda Mugambi. The court was called upon to determine several key issues, including whether impeachment proceedings are immune from judicial review due to their political nature, whether the impeachment process complied with constitutional and statutory requirements, whether the right to a fair hearing was respected, whether public participation requirements were met, and what remedies, if any, were appropriate in the circumstances of the case, among other reliefs.
On the issue of procedure, the court held that both the National Assembly and the Senate acted within their constitutional and statutory mandates. The prescribed steps for impeachment under the Constitution had been followed, and the institutional requirements for initiation, hearing, and determination were duly observed.
On the issue of fair hearing, the petitioner argued that the process was rushed and that his inability to fully participate due to illness undermined his right to a fair trial. In its judgment, the court issued a declaratory finding that the Deputy President’s right to a fair trial was violated during the Senate proceedings. The judges held that the refusal by the Senate to grant an adjournment, despite his absence, amounted to a breach of fair hearing protections in the specific circumstances of the case. While the court reaffirmed that Parliament has constitutional authority to conduct impeachment proceedings, it emphasized that such authority must still operate within constitutional limits, including respect for fair trial rights.
A central feature of the judgment was the court’s decision to award KSh 50 million in constitutional damages to former Deputy President, Rigathi Gachagua. The bench stated that the award was made against the Senate as the responsible institution, and was intended to serve several constitutional purposes. The court awarded constitutional damages with the purpose of compensating for the violation of fair trial rights, vindicating the Constitution as the supreme legal authority, restoring the dignity of the affected office holder, and deterring future constitutional breaches by state organs. The court’s reasoning highlights an important constitutional principle: even where Parliament is exercising a constitutionally mandated function such as impeachment, it is still bound by the Bill of Rights, including the right to a fair hearing. Where that standard is violated, the courts retain jurisdiction to intervene and grant appropriate remedies, including constitutional damages.
On jurisdiction, the court emphasized the doctrine of separation of powers. It held that impeachment is primarily a political function assigned to Parliament, and courts may only intervene to the extent of ensuring constitutional compliance. The judiciary cannot substitute its own determination for that of Parliament unless there is clear violation of the Constitution.
The court also evaluated whether Parliament complied with public participation requirements in relation to the impeachment process. It found that Parliament had conducted a nationwide public participation exercise and that it had met its constitutional obligation to consult the public. The court dismissed arguments that the process had been rushed or lacked verifiability, holding that the threshold for meaningful public participation had been satisfied.
In its final decision, the High Court upheld the impeachment process while simultaneously recognizing a violation of constitutional rights. It therefore declined to overturn the impeachment itself but awarded constitutional damages as a remedy for the breach identified. This created a nuanced outcome: the process was upheld as constitutionally valid in structure, but not entirely free from constitutional fault. The impeachment of Former Deputy President, Rigathi Gachagua has now set an important constitutional precedent in Kenya’s legal system.
It confirms three key principles, First, impeachment is a political process, but it remains subject to constitutional review. Second, parliamentary proceedings must comply with minimum standards of fairness, even within strict timelines. Third, courts retain the power to grant constitutional remedies, including damages, where rights are violated.
Ultimately, the decision reflects the balance Kenya’s Constitution seeks to maintain allowing political institutions to function independently, while ensuring they do not operate outside constitutional limits.