The ruling represents the latest chapter in an unprecedented legal saga that began when Gachagua became the first deputy president removed from office through impeachment since Kenya adopted its revised constitution in 2010. His ouster in October 2024, following a Senate vote that found him guilty on five of 11 charges, has triggered a complex web of court battles that have tested the limits of Kenya’s constitutional framework.
The Supreme Court’s decision came after Gachagua filed an application seeking to stay High Court proceedings, strike out the National Assembly’s appeal, and expunge certain documents from the court record. In a five-judge bench ruling led by Chief Justice Martha Koome, the court clarified the scope of its constitutional authority while rejecting all of Gachagua’s procedural requests.
Constitutional Questions at the Heart of Legal Battle
At the center of the dispute lies a fundamental question about judicial authority: whether Deputy Chief Justice Philomena Mwilu possessed the constitutional power to empanel the three-judge High Court bench that initially heard petitions challenging Gachagua’s impeachment.
The Court of Appeal previously ruled in November 2024 that Mwilu lacked such authority under Article 165(4) of the Constitution, finding that only the chief justice can constitute benches to hear constitutional matters except in narrowly defined exceptional circumstances. That ruling prompted the National Assembly to appeal to the Supreme Court, arguing that the interpretation imposed restrictions not found in the constitution itself.
Gachagua’s legal team has seized on this dispute, arguing that the bench empaneled by Mwilu — Justices Eric Ogolla, Anthony Mrima, and Freda Mugambi — lacked jurisdiction from the outset. The same bench notably lifted conservatory orders that had temporarily blocked the swearing-in of Kithure Kindiki as Gachagua’s replacement, allowing President William Ruto’s nominee to assume office in early November 2024.
In its ruling this week, the Supreme Court emphasized that its review would focus exclusively on the legality of the bench’s empanelment, not on the merits of Gachagua’s impeachment itself. “This Court’s jurisdiction under Article 163(4) of the Constitution is clearly defined and circumscribed: to hear appeals from the Court of Appeal as of right in cases involving the interpretation or application of the Constitution,” the four-judge bench wrote.
The Political Fallout and Path to Impeachment
Gachagua’s removal from office followed a dramatic two-day Senate trial in which he faced allegations ranging from gross violation of constitutional provisions to corruption, ethnic discrimination, and undermining the president and cabinet. The National Assembly had overwhelmingly approved the impeachment motion on Oct. 8, 2024, with 281 members voting in favor and just 44 against.
The charges painted a picture of a deputy president who had strayed far from his constitutional mandate as the president’s principal assistant. Among the most serious allegations were accusations that Gachagua promoted ethnic division by publicly asserting that government resources and positions should be allocated based on how different ethnic communities voted in the 2022 election.
Gachagua, a wealthy businessman from central Kenya who helped secure critical votes from the populous Mount Kenya region for Ruto’s 2022 victory, denied all charges and characterized the impeachment as a “choreographed political lynching.” He was hospitalized with chest pains before he could testify in his own defense during the Senate trial, a development that added dramatic tension to the proceedings.
Despite pleas from his legal team for a postponement, senators voted to proceed with the trial in Gachagua’s absence. The final tally saw 54 senators vote to uphold the first charge of gross constitutional violations, with 13 voting against. On the charge of undermining the judiciary, 51 voted for conviction while 16 voted against.
Ongoing Legal Uncertainties and Political Implications
The Supreme Court’s ruling this week declined Gachagua’s request to stay High Court proceedings, noting that it lacks jurisdiction over proceedings in lower courts. “By necessary and logical reasoning, only proceedings before the Court of Appeal can be stayed by this Court,” the justices wrote. “Yet the instant application is inviting us to stay, not the proceedings in the Court of Appeal, but those before the High Court.”
The court also rejected Gachagua’s attempt to strike out the National Assembly’s appeal based on the doctrine of judicial estoppel, which prevents parties from taking contradictory positions in related legal proceedings. Gachagua had argued that Parliament previously contended the deputy chief justice lacked empanelment authority and should be barred from reversing its position. The court found that determining whether such inconsistency existed would require detailed analysis inappropriate for summary dismissal proceedings.
As the legal battle continues, Gachagua has signaled his intention to challenge President Ruto in the 2027 presidential election. Under Kenyan law, as long as his impeachment remains under appeal and has not been conclusively decided by the Supreme Court, he retains eligibility to seek elected office. He has announced plans to unveil a new political party and has been building alliances with opposition figures including former President Uhuru Kenyatta and veteran politicians Kalonzo Musyoka and Martha Karua.
The impeachment has exposed deep fissures within Kenya’s ruling coalition and raised questions about the balance of power between the executive and legislature. Political analysts have warned that the detailed scrutiny of Gachagua’s finances during the impeachment process could create pressure for similar accountability measures to be applied to other government officials, including the president himself.
For now, the High Court proceedings challenging the impeachment are expected to resume following the Supreme Court’s clarification of jurisdictional boundaries. The case remains a test of Kenya’s constitutional democracy, with implications that extend far beyond the political fate of one individual.
Given the public interest nature of the matter, the Supreme Court ordered that there would be no costs awarded to either party in the applications decided this week.
