The High Court has upheld the impeachment of former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua, ruling that although his constitutional rights were violated during the Senate proceedings, the breaches were insufficient to invalidate his removal from office.

In a judgment delivered by a three-judge bench comprising Justices Eric Ogola, Antony Mrima and Fred Mugambi, the court found that Gachagua’s rights to fair administrative action and a fair hearing were infringed when the Senate declined to postpone impeachment proceedings despite his absence.

The judges awarded Gachagua Sh50 million in constitutional damages against the Senate, saying the compensation was intended to vindicate the Constitution, restore the dignity of the affected party and discourage similar violations in future proceedings.

“The award is meant to vindicate the Constitution, restore the dignity of the affected party, and deter future violations,” the bench stated.

The case arose from consolidated petitions filed by 58 petitioners, including Gachagua and several civil society organisations, challenging the legality and constitutionality of various stages of the impeachment process.

Despite finding violations of Gachagua’s rights, the court declined to nullify the Senate’s decision removing him from office.

The judges ruled that the former Deputy President’s legal team had abandoned prayers seeking reinstatement and further held that the Constitution does not provide for the return of an impeached Deputy President once the Senate has validly upheld impeachment charges.

According to the court, a Deputy President ceases to hold office immediately after the Senate votes by the constitutionally required two-thirds majority to sustain impeachment charges.

“To order reinstatement in circumstances where the vacancy has already been filled would amount to the court usurping powers reserved to the people and their representatives under the Constitution,” the judges ruled, adding that “the Constitution does not envisage two serving Deputy Presidents at any one time.”

Gachagua was impeached in October 2024 following a motion sponsored by Kibwezi West MP Mwengi Mutuse.

The motion cited multiple grounds, including gross violation of the Constitution, abuse of office, incitement, corruption-related allegations and conduct alleged to have undermined President William Ruto’s administration.

Following his removal, President Ruto nominated Prof. Kithure Kindiki to succeed him as Deputy President.

The nomination was subsequently approved by the National Assembly in accordance with Article 149(1) of the Constitution.

The court upheld the public participation process conducted by the National Assembly, finding that it satisfied constitutional requirements.

It also ruled that the Senate was under no obligation to undertake a separate public participation exercise before hearing the impeachment charges.

In addition, the judges upheld the constitutionality of the Standing Orders governing impeachment proceedings in both the National Assembly and the Senate, while dismissing arguments that the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission should have been involved in the replacement of a Deputy President during a presidential term.

“The gazettement of the Senate resolution, the President’s nomination of H.E. Kindiki, and the National Assembly’s approval did not contravene the Constitution merely because they were undertaken expeditiously,” the court held.

“We therefore affirm that the nomination and appointment of H.E. Kindiki as Deputy President was valid.”

While affirming the overall legality of the impeachment process, the bench ruled that Parliament should enact legislation specifically governing the impeachment of a Deputy President under Article 150 of the Constitution.

However, it held that the absence of such legislation did not render the proceedings unconstitutional.

The judges further distinguished the impeachment of a Deputy President from the removal of a county governor, describing presidential impeachment as a process carrying constitutional finality.

They held that while Senate decisions relating to the removal of a President or Deputy President enjoy a degree of finality under the Constitution, governor impeachment proceedings remain subject to judicial review under existing statutory frameworks.

The court declined to determine whether an impeached Deputy President is entitled to pension and retirement benefits, finding that the issue had not been properly presented for determination.

It said the question could be pursued in separate proceedings.

Each party was ordered to bear its own costs.