Gachagua suffers huge setback as High Court upholds his impeachment
By Zipporah Ngwatu, June 8, 2026The former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua has suffered a blow after the High Court upheld his impeachment from office.
A landmark judgement delivered by Justices Eric Ogola, Freda Mugambi, and Antony Murima on Monday, June 8, 2026, found that the Members of Parliament and Senators followed the due process for the removal of Gachagua from office.
“The prayers seeking to quash Gachagua’s impeachment are hereby declined,” the bench has ruled.
The bench ruled out the allegations of bias, predetermination, and conflict of interest advanced against the National Assembly and Senate speakers, members of Parliament, and senators, terming them as unsubstantiated.
Justices Ogola, Freda and Murima also noted that the public participation exercise carried out by the August house met the required threshold, declaring the petitioner’s argument that the exercise did not meet the constitutional threshold as null and void.
Notably, the court stated that constitutionally, there was no need for a public participation exercise on the nomination and approval of the current Deputy President Kithure Kindiki.
“We are satisfied that the public participation conducted by the National Assembly in connection with the impeachment of His excellency Gachagua met the constitutional threshold,” the bench ruled.
The Senate’s decision not to conduct its own independent public participation complies with Articles 10 and 118. We further hold that public participation was not constitutionally required for the nomination and approval of His Excellency Kindiki as Deputy President under Article 149(1),” the court added.
In addition, the bench ruled that it possesses jurisdiction under Articles 22, 23, and 165 of the Constitution to determine whether the National Assembly and the Senate acted within constitutional bounds, complied with constitutional procedures, respected constitutional rights, and remained faithful to the constitutional safeguards governing the impeachment of a Deputy President.
However, the bench ruled that Gachagua’s rights were violated when the Senate refused to adjourn the proceedings after he was taken ill and instead proceeded with the impeachment process.
“We find that His Excellency Gachagua’s rights were infringed when the Senate refused to allow an adjournment.” This violation constitutes both a vindication of his rights and a recognition of the constitutional infirmity in the process but does not undo the impeachment itself, given the finality of Article 145(7) and the constitutional absurdity that would arise from dual incumbency,” the court ruled.