Gachagua impeachment case set to redefine limits of power in Kenya

The High Court ruling expected in the impeachment proceedings against Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua on Monday is set to become one of the most consequential constitutional moments in Kenya’s recent history.

While the case centres on Gachagua, its implications will extend far beyond his political future and into the long-term structure of governance.

At the heart of the matter is Kenya’s 2010 Constitution, which introduced a detailed framework for the removal of a Deputy President under Article 145.

The forthcoming decision is expected to mark the first major judicial interpretation of how that framework should operate in practice, particularly in relation to what qualifies as a gross violation of the Constitution and how such allegations should be assessed.

The former deputy president was impeached on October 8, 2024, following a two-step parliamentary process under Article 145 of the Constitution.

The motion was introduced in the National Assembly on October 1, 2024, by Kibwezi West MP Mwengi Mutuse, listing 11 charges, including corruption, gross misconduct, and undermining the President.

On October 8, 2024, MPs voted 281 in favour, 44 against, and 1 abstention, exceeding the required two-thirds threshold, and approved his removal.

The motion moved to the Senate, which, on October 17, 2024, upheld the impeachment, finding him guilty on five of 11 charges with a two-thirds majority vote.

He was subsequently replaced by Prof. Kithure Kindiki, who was nominated and later confirmed as Deputy President after court clearance.

He became the first Deputy President in Kenya’s history to be impeached under the 2010 Constitution, marking a major constitutional and political precedent.

Moving forward on the judicial matter, a central issue expected to be addressed today by the court is whether impeachment decisions by Parliament will be open to judicial review.

This question of justiciability will determine the extent to which courts can scrutinise parliamentary actions taken during impeachment proceedings.

On one side, it is anticipated that rights advocates will argue that impeachment, though initiated in a political institution, is fundamentally a constitutional process that must comply with legal standards.

Under this view, Parliament would be required not only to follow procedure but also to rely on credible evidence, reasoned findings, and fair processes. Courts, in turn, would retain the authority to intervene where those standards are not met.

On the other side, it is expected that the government will argue that impeachment is a political question reserved exclusively for Parliament.

From this perspective, judicial interference would risk undermining the separation of powers and shifting political accountability away from elected representatives.

The outcome of this interpretive conflict will carry significant consequences. If the court determines that impeachment decisions are not justiciable, Parliament would effectively gain wide discretion in determining the fate of high office-holders.

Critics of this approach warn that it could allow political majorities to remove officials with limited external checks, provided procedural requirements are formally met.

Conversely, if the court affirms that impeachment decisions are subject to judicial review, it would establish a stronger constitutional safeguard.

Parliament would still retain its impeachment powers, but those powers would be exercised under clearer legal constraints.

Courts would be empowered to assess whether constitutional thresholds have been genuinely satisfied, not merely procedurally acknowledged.

Such a ruling would also influence future political conduct. Lawmakers could be required to adopt higher evidentiary standards, while office holders would gain clearer legal protections against arbitrary removal.

It would reinforce the judiciary’s role as a guardian of constitutional compliance in politically sensitive decisions.

Ultimately, the judgment is expected to define the balance between political authority and constitutional oversight in Kenya.

It will determine whether impeachment remains primarily a political instrument or becomes a fully justiciable constitutional process subject to judicial control.