Former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua has now reiterated that he wants a full-term payment instead of reinstatement to the office in his impeachment case.

Through his legal team led by Senior Counsel Paul Muite, on Monday, April 27, 2026, he told the court that even though they are still challenging the legality of his impeachment, he does not want to be reinstated.

Appearing before presiding Judge Eric Ogola, Lady Justice Fred Mugambi, and Antony Mrima, the former DP informed the bench that he had amended his petition to seek payment instead of reinstatement.

“My lords and lady, on May 29, 2025, I informed this court that the first petitioner, Rigathi Gachagua, was abandoning his reinstatement case,” SC Muite submitted.

“I wish my lords and lady to reiterate that the prayers for the first petitioner remain compensation for the five years he was to be in the office,” SC Muite told the bench.

“Briefly, my lord, impeachment cannot and could not be backward,” Muite added.

Full payment

The petitioner seeks full payment of monies he would have earned, plus the benefits he would have earned as the DP, and damages he incurred because of the impeachment.

The hearing of the case comes after the Supreme Court dismissed Gachagua’s application that sought to temporarily halt the proceedings of four consolidated petitions at the High Court.

In dismissing the application on January 30, 2026, the apex court judges stated they can only issue temporary orders halting court proceedings at the Court of Appeal and not the High Court.

Judges Martha Koome, Philomena Mwilu, Smokin Wanjala, Njoki Ndung’u, Isaac Lenaola, and William Ouko also refused to dismiss the Parliament appeal, arguing that there is a need for it to be heard and determined.

“The application by Hon. Gachagua is dismissed for the reasons that the Supreme Court can only stay proceedings before the Court of Appeal and not the High Court as prayed for; the appeal by the National Assembly is not one that was capable of summarily being dismissed and warrants determination on merit; and the documents sought to be expunged are integral to the determination of the appeal before the Supreme Court and were referred to by both the High Court and the Court of Appeal in their determination of the dispute,” the apex court ruled.