Former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua’s legal team contests the impeachment process, citing procedural flaws, transparency concerns, and disputed public participation data as the High Court continues hearing the case.
The High Court resumed hearing arguments on Tuesday challenging the impeachment of former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua, as his legal team pressed claims that Parliament violated constitutional procedures during the process that led to his removal in 2024.
Weeks after filings were accepted, judges returned to the matter following earlier adjournments, with lawyers arguing that the National Assembly and Senate fast-tracked impeachment hearings, limiting Gachagua’s ability to mount a full defense.
Public participation dispute
The legal team maintains that the impeachment did not comply with constitutional and parliamentary requirements governing the removal of a Deputy President, raising questions over fairness and transparency in the process.
They argue that key documents presented in Parliament failed to clearly outline allegations of gross violation of the Constitution, making it difficult for ordinary citizens to understand the charges.
The lawyers further submitted that the impeachment documents were not adequately detailed to enable meaningful public participation, arguing that citizens were not properly informed before being asked to engage in the process.
Each of the seven grounds provided from paragraph number seven does exactly the same thing for each of the grounds. For the grounds themselves no information is provided that could help an ordinary citizen understand what gross violation of the Constitution means. If she were to respond it would not be based on any informed understanding. She was never sensitized, the lawyers submitted.
The team also questioned the credibility of public participation data presented during the proceedings, alleging inconsistencies in reported numbers of submissions said to have been delivered to Parliament.
The information being provided is disputed. Thirty thousand Kenyans are said to have submitted views to Parliament. Even with multiple clerks, it would take several days to process such volumes. The only inference that can be drawn from the figures is that they are unreliable, the lawyers argued.
Gachagua is seeking a court declaration that his impeachment was unlawful, as well as payment of salaries, benefits, and privileges he says he lost following his removal from office in October 2024.
The case continues as the High Court weighs procedural arguments and determines whether the impeachment process met constitutional standards required under Kenyan law. The outcome could set a precedent for how future impeachment proceedings are conducted in the country.
