The High Court was on Thursday told that the impeachment of former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua was not a normal accountability process but a politically planned move aimed at pushing him out of government ahead of the 2027 elections.
Petitioners challenging his removal argued before a three-judge bench of the Constitutional and Human Rights Division that the October 2024 impeachment was shaped by internal political disagreements within the Kenya Kwanza administration rather than constitutional grounds.
They linked the events to rising tensions in government following the Gen-Z protests and wider competition over succession politics, saying the process was influenced by a deliberate strategy to weaken Gachagua’s political standing.
The lawyers claimed that Parliament acted under pressure and was used as a tool to achieve political objectives instead of carrying out its constitutional duty independently.
They told the court that the case was not only about Gachagua’s removal but about what they described as the weakening of constitutional protections and parliamentary independence.
Jane Njeri Maina, who also serves as Kirinyaga County Woman Representative, told the judges that the impeachment process reflected what she termed a breakdown of constitutional order.
She argued that Parliament ignored court instructions that required public participation to be done at constituency level, instead carrying out a rushed exercise that failed to meet legal standards.
Maina said the notices issued to the public were vague and did not give citizens a fair chance to participate meaningfully in the process before Parliament debated and voted.
“The impeachment violated binding court orders, constitutional requirements on public participation, fair hearing protections and the mandatory requirement for a special Senate committee, while relying on Standing Orders inconsistent with the Constitution,” she argued.
She further told the court that the National Assembly reduced a complex constitutional matter into a simple YES/NO process, which she said denied citizens proper involvement.
Lawmakers eventually voted 281-44 in favour of impeachment before the matter was sent to the Senate, which upheld the decision through a 54-13 vote while Gachagua was hospitalised.
“The National Assembly purported to conduct public participation on October 4, 2024 using a YES/NO template published in the Daily Nation on October 2, 2024. Approximately 200,000 responses were collected from a population exceeding 52 million,” said Maina.
She also accused the Senate of failing to conduct any public participation before making its final decision on the matter.
Another key argument raised in court was the Senate’s decision to sit as a committee of the whole House instead of forming an 11-member special committee to investigate the charges.
Maina insisted that Article 145 of the Constitution required the Senate to establish the special committee before proceeding to debate or vote on impeachment charges.
The petitioners said bypassing that stage denied Gachagua a fair hearing and removed key protections guaranteed under Article 50.
Lawyer Kibe Mungai, representing another group of petitioners including the Gema Watho Association, told the court that the impeachment reflected a deeper political struggle rather than genuine constitutional enforcement.
The Gema Watho Association was described in court as a body bringing together more than 1,000 advocates from the Mt Kenya region.
“The impeachment proceedings against the first petitioner were triggered by political fallout between him and the President as opposed to genuine existence of any grounds,” Mungai stated in his submissions.