Gachagua Launches Legal Counterattack, Calls Impeachment Judgment “Unconstitutional”
Politics Updated: 09 June 2026 18:00 EAT
Former DP Rigathi Gachagua addressing the press after the High Court upheld his impeachment
Former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua has mounted a fierce attack on the High Court ruling that upheld his impeachment, insisting that the decision amounted to a constitutional error and a violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 25, 47, and 50 of the Constitution.
He was speaking in Nairobi just a day after the High Court delivered its ruling on his impeachment, in a post-judgment media briefing directed to the press and the public. The address was not part of a campaign rally but a legal and political response anchored around the court decision process, with his comments framed as an immediate reaction to proceedings linked to the Milimani Law Courts where the judgment was issued.
“Article 25 of our Constitution provides rights that are non-derogable. They cannot be limited under any circumstances. Aligned is a provision to fair trial. The right to fair hearing bound by Article 50 and in regard to the process, Article 47 demands fair process requiring mandatory fair hearing. We strongly observe that the impeachment process was found faulty by the three-judge bench for failure to respect my right to fair hearing in the violation of Articles 25, 47, and 50 of the constitution.”
He argued that the impeachment process collapsed the moment the court acknowledged breaches of fair hearing rights, stating that rights protected under the Constitution cannot be limited under any circumstances and must override all procedural outcomes.
“There was no impeachment. There was a constitutional coup and abuse to the people of independent Kenya. The three-judge bench was obligated by operation of the law on determination or violation of the constitution to set aside the impeachment. The decision by the bench to then purport to uphold the impeachment in the face of his decision or violation of the constitution is in itself a violation and derogation of his responsibility under Article 165. Decisions made in violation of the constitution are null and void.”
Gachagua maintained that the findings of the three-judge bench effectively confirmed that the Senate proceedings were constitutionally defective, yet the court still proceeded to validate the outcome, a position he described as legally contradictory and untenable.
“Lord Denning in MacFoy declared that if an act is void, then it is in law a nullity. It is not only bad but incurably bad. You cannot put something on nothing and expect it to stay there. It will collapse. How then would a three-judge bench argue that the non-derogable right to fair trial was violated in the impeachment process, then they turned around and tell the Kenyan people that regardless, the impeachment was valid? What a paradox.”
He further claimed that once a violation of fair hearing is established, the legal consequence should have been the nullification of the entire impeachment process, arguing that any decision reached through unconstitutional means cannot stand in law.
“Dear Kenyans, we recall that on 31st October 2024, while setting aside conservatory orders issued by the High Court, this very bench gave an undertaking in open court that there did not exist any violation without remedy or outside the reach of the court. They further argued that in the event and as a consequence of setting aside the protective conservatory orders, they determined that if the impeachment process was unconstitutional, they would reverse any actions and decisions taken pursuant to the impeachment. The Attorney General gave the same undertaking through counsel, Professor Muigai, Emeritus.”
He described the ruling as inconsistent with constitutional interpretation principles under Article 165, insisting that courts are obligated to invalidate actions found to have violated the Constitution rather than partially uphold them.
“In yet another paradoxical determination, the bench decided that the Senate failed to follow expected constitutional impeachment process by refusing to use a required select committee. The Senate instead moved directly to plenary, then for no determined reason, in a single sentence claimed to be bound by the Supreme Court decision in Sonko's case, which was in regard to impeachment of a governor, and which decision the bench went on to distinguish. This was exceptionally incomprehensible.”
In his detailed response, he invoked legal reasoning drawn from established jurisprudence, arguing that a void act remains void in law and cannot be legitimized through judicial reasoning after a constitutional breach has been identified.
“Dear Kenyans, in this regard, earlier today I held a consultative engagement with my legal team led by Senior Counsel Paul Muite, and we have clearly analyzed the judgment and I have instructed them to challenge this judgment on the Court of Appeal. For avoidance of doubt, I move to the High Court to fight for my rights and those of Kenyans who participated in the 2022 general elections that have been violated. My prayer was to seek the cushioning of an illegal process of impeachment. It is only after the determination of illegality, as has already happened, and setting aside of the impeachment, as should have happened, we were to consider asking for damages for constitutional violations.”
He also referenced earlier proceedings in which the court, during interim applications, had indicated that any unconstitutional process would be subject to reversal, arguing that this expectation was not reflected in the final judgment.
“The 50 million Kenya shillings awarded to me is an insult to my fundamental rights and freedoms and a mockery of the constitution. We are not interested. Money was never the issue here. Justice and constitutional supremacy was. I am one Kenyan leader who will not and cannot be swayed by promises of money to allow violation of the constitution. I stand as a matter of principle to protect constitutional rights and defend the constitution. This is a note that I saw, and Kenyans know me for that. If I was interested in money, Mr. William Ruto had offered me 2 billion Kenya shillings in an effort to entice me to avoid impeachment and choose resignation, but I stood for my rights and that of over 7 million Kenyans who voted for me.”
Gachagua further questioned the handling of Senate procedure, arguing that the chamber deviated from required constitutional mechanisms, including bypassing a select committee process and relying instead on plenary deliberations without sufficient justification.
“And um, a retired principal called me last night listening to the judgment that my rights were violated. 'But if the impeachment is vacated, there will be a positional crisis because there will be two deputy presidents.' And this lady who has gone to school summarized the whole argument in a very simple manner. She told me it was like a man who wants to take your wife and organizes with the police to prefer false charges against you, connives with the magistrate to have you imprisoned so that he can take your wife...”
He said the judgment appeared to rely inconsistently on precedent from other impeachment cases while simultaneously distinguishing them, creating what he termed an incoherent legal framework for the decision.
“Uh, fellow Kenyans, my supporters and Kenyans from across the country have reached out to me. They are enraged, bitter, and apprehensive about the false narratives being spread by the state that I'm ineligible to run for office as President of the Republic of Kenya. This is a desperate and false propaganda by those terrified of my candidature... Article 99 sub-article 3 of our constitution provides in clear and unambiguous terms that no reason, no person shall be barred from vying as a candidate in any election unless and until all avenues of appeal are exhausted.”
On remedies, he criticized the court’s award of damages while still upholding the impeachment, saying it amounted to acknowledging injury without correcting the underlying constitutional violation.
“This erroneous judgment of the bench, previously determined by the Court of Appeal, have been unprocedurally empaneled, has taken nearly two years and that was just the initial stage of the appellate process. I will be vindicated by the Court of Appeal, hopefully once again, with a further protection at the Supreme Court still in my hand. I wish, I wish to confirm to my supporters across the country that I'm eligible to vie as a presidential candidate and I'll be on the ballot on the 10th of August 2027...”
He dismissed the financial compensation as insufficient and symbolic, insisting that the central issue was constitutional supremacy rather than monetary remedy, and vowed to pursue further legal redress.
“I retreated to my village in Nyeri and held consultative engagements with the people of Kenya for four months including men, women, millennials, Gen Zs... I was instructed to form a political party... The Mountain is united... we now have arguably the most popular political party in the country, DCP...”
Gachagua confirmed that he has instructed his legal team, led by Senior Counsel Paul Muite, to escalate the matter to the Court of Appeal, expressing confidence that higher courts will overturn the ruling.
“My supporters have now instructed me urgently to embark on the implementation of our joint strategic stance... we have two plans. Plan A is to mobilize support... Plan B... to jointly with the other core principles identify a single presidential flag bearer to face President William Ruto...”
He also addressed political implications, rejecting narratives suggesting he is ineligible to run for future office, citing constitutional provisions governing electoral eligibility and appeal processes.
“I want to reiterate and firmly state to the people of Kenya that I remain committed to work with my colleagues... I remain hopeful that I'll be that candidate for the election of the presidency... However, if any of my other colleagues is agreed upon... we shall rally behind the agreed candidate...”
He further stated that his political base remains intact and organized, asserting that consultations with supporters and political allies have reinforced plans for a unified opposition strategy ahead of the 2027 election cycle.
“I want to say we must get back our nation... And I'll do whatever it takes to mobilize my colleagues... I want to confirm that if I'm not the flag bearer, I and my supporters will support another Kenyan... Be it Kalonzo, be it Wetang'ula, be it Fred Matiang'i... once we agree, and we shall agree...”
Concluding his remarks, he reaffirmed that he will continue engaging in coalition-building efforts across the country, emphasizing that the priority now is political alignment among opposition figures to field a single presidential candidate in future elections.
“We shall move on. I have left the issues of court now to my lawyers. I have no other responsibility from today. It is to make sure that we have one single presidential candidate against President William Ruto... We are moving now into the phase of strategy to identify one single presidential candidate...”
Tags: DCP DCP Leader Rigathi Gachagua Dp Rigathi Gachagua Edit Editor's Pick Editors choice High Court News Article Political Partys Political Science Political tensions Politics Rigathi Gachagua Senate Signs Signs Media Signs Media Kenya Limited Signs Tv Signsmedia Signst Signstv SignsTV Signstvkenya Signsv Ssignstv The senate Article Political Party Pwds Political Inclusion Signstvfao Wantam Wantam
Share this article
FELIX MAKONA
FACT FINDER AND DATA DRIVEN JOURNALIST. DATA MINING AT IT'S BEST. GET FACTS RANGING FROM MATTERS DISABILITY AND INCLUSION, POLITICS, ECONOMY, SPORTS AND GENERAL NEWS AROUND THE WORLD