Costly impeachment: Inside Rigathi Gachagua's demand for billions in compensation

Former DP Rigathi Gachagua and his wife, Pastor Dorcas Gachagua, at Milimani Court, April 27, 2026. [Collins Kweyu, Standard]

Former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua’s impeachment case has taken an unexpected turn and is shaping up to be a landmark. From claims that MPs were bribed in large numbers to his demand for millions, possibly billions, over what he calls an unlawful removal from office, lawyers on both sides have battled to outmanoeuvre each other.

Yesterday, Gachagua dropped his push to return to office and instead asked the court to award him compensation and pay his full benefits.

He described his 2024 impeachment as being carried out in bad faith and widened his challenge to include Senate Speaker Amason Kingi, National Assembly Speaker Moses Wetang’ula, and his successor, Prof Kithure Kindiki.

Gachagua said he no longer wants to return as Kenya’s second-in-command. Instead, his lawyers told High Court judges Eric Ogola, Anthony Mrima and Freda Mugambi that he wants the impeachment declared unconstitutional and set aside, and that he should receive the full benefits due to a deputy president.

They also asked the court to rule that impeachment cannot be applied to actions that took place before the process began.

Gachagua is represented by lawyers Paul Muite, Elisha Ongoya, Tom Macharia, Faith Waigwa, John Njomo, Dudley Ochiel, Victor Swanya and Willis Echesa.

Former DP Rigathi Gachagua and his wife, Pastor Dorcas Gachagua, at Milimani Court, April 27, 2026. [Collins Kweyu, Standard]

If the court rules in his favour, taxpayers could bear the cost of what may turn out to be one of Parliament’s most expensive missteps, with the bill potentially running into billions, given the benefits attached to the deputy president’s office.

Estimates show that over a full five-year term, the deputy president and the office account for about Sh16.5 billion. But Gachagua’s immediate claim is Sh66.4 million, covering salary, airtime and gratuity.

He is also asking the court to grant him medical cover, pension and the full benefits package of a retired deputy president.

Mr Muite opened by laying out Gachagua’s dispute with both the National Assembly and the Senate, as well as the appointment of his successor.

Using a vivid analogy, Muite said Gachagua had been treated like “a sheep in a court of hyenas”, arguing that the public only heard Parliament’s side while his client’s account was largely shut out.

He claimed that Mr Wetang’ula and Mr Kingi were not neutral, but beneficiaries and active players in what he described as a power-sharing arrangement — which he likened to shareholding — and said this is what drove MPs to push for Gachagua’s removal.

Muite argued that while Kenya Kwanza leaders were quick to point out Gachagua’s faults, they ignored their own, insisting that government positions had been shared out in line with that same agreement. 

The judges also heard that Prof Kindiki was a signatory to the same document Gachagua has been criticised for referencing in his ‘shareholding’ claims.

The defence team first challenged how public participation was carried out. Muite cited Nairobi as an example, saying the exercise was handled by a select group of Orange Democratic Movement (ODM) members, who allegedly told people it was limited to invited participants.

“The National Assembly conducted a public participation exercise on October 4 and 5. However, it was not meaningful,” he argued.

The senior lawyer said the process was rushed at breakneck speed and questioned why both the Senate and the National Assembly moved so quickly to conclude it.

Former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua and his wife Pastor Dorcas Gachagua at Milimani court on April 27,2026 for the hearing of his impeachment case. [Collins Kweyu, Standard]

Muite argued that the outcome had been decided in advance. “The third respondent convened a session of the Senate on October 8, 2024, which then passed a resolution that the plenary would consider the same. If a person is to be impeached, the Senate cannot bypass the committee,” he said, adding that the rules of natural justice required that Gachagua appear before a committee before the impeachment went to the floor.

Muite argued that the 10 days the Senate gave itself were meant for a committee stage, not for the full House to handle the case from start to finish.

He also complained that the time given to each side was unfair. He said Gachagua was effectively given only two hours to defend himself, while the motion’s sponsor, Mwengi Mutuse, had three hours to present the case against him.

At the same time, Muite said the Senate should have paused proceedings when Gachagua fell ill. Instead, he told the court, senators went ahead and impeached him on five of the 11 charges.

“This was an absolute failure for Parliament to address itself on the threshold of impeachment based on popular votes. In the parliamentary system, MPs are entitled to kick the prime minister out of office for loss of confidence, while in the presidential system, it is not the case that MPs can vote and christen their move as constitutional, but what they are doing is ‘we have the numbers’ or a vote of no confidence,” he said.

Muite said impeachment is meant to be a last resort under the Constitution and argued that MPs overstepped their role by acting as both accusers and decision-makers instead of allowing other legal processes to take their course. In his view, the allegations against Gachagua should have been handled through prosecution in court or referred to the National Cohesion and Integration Commission (NCIC), rather than being used as grounds for impeachment.

Muite began with the impeachment motion in the National Assembly, arguing that it was unconstitutional because there was no evidence beyond doubt that Gachagua had committed the alleged offences. “Not each violation of the Constitution amounts to a gross violation of the Constitution,” he said, adding that the charges must clearly state that they amount to gross violations and be supported by specific particulars.

The lawyer said the charges were vague and unsubstantiated. He added that, for example, although the court had nullified laws criminalising criticism five years before Gachagua’s impeachment, ground eight was still anchored on the same law.

At the same time, he said, Mutuse also anchored his claims against Gachagua on Nderitu Gachagua’s wealth. According to Muite, although the MP alleged that Gachagua had amassed Sh5.2 billion and used 32 companies to acquire illicit wealth, there was no evidence presented to support those claims.

He described the proceedings as a theatre of hearsay, lies and mob justice that went beyond Gachagua to his family.

Muite further stated that the process was designed in a way that allowed the National Assembly to avoid accountability while enabling the President to dangle the vice presidency as leverage.

He said the motion was driven by bias and hatred within Parliament.

“Every accused person has a right to a fair trial, which includes being informed about the charges and access to the evidence. Overall, the impeachment was thus incapable of invoking the National Assembly’s mandate,” argued Muite.

Former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua's lawyers at Milimani court on April 27,2026 for the hearing of his impeachment case. [Collins Kweyu, Standard]

In the Senate proceedings, Muite argued that although the upper house cited Gachagua’s right to a fair hearing, it still denied him an opportunity to present evidence in response to the impeachment motion.

He said the Senate had sufficient time to pause the process until Gachagua was given a proper chance to defend himself, but instead chose to proceed in his absence.

He further claimed that both the Senate and the National Assembly handled the matter in a rushed manner, saying the transmission of the final decision was done at midnight.

“How was he (the National Assembly Speaker) able to anticipate the Senate’s decision in advance?” Muite said, adding that it was unusual that Kindiki was cleared in record time, including the IEBC, which at the time had no commissioners.

“I invite you to look into the smoke screen. They were simply saying, ‘We have the numbers, mtado? (What will you do?)’” he said.

Lawyer Teresiah Wanjiru Kimotho told the judges that Gachagua’s impeachment was a mockery of the people’s power, arguing that he was not subjected to the same rigorous process used when he was elected alongside President Ruto.

She claimed that Members of Parliament and Senators were paid Sh500,000 and Sh1 million respectively, alleging that they were determined to remove him from office to the extent that they ignored a court order from the Kerugoya High Court.

“We served the Senate and the Speaker acknowledged there was a case in Kerugoya. This can only show they had already made up their minds, and that is why we support the petitioners.

“We are accusing the Attorney General. Everybody kept saying MPs were given Sh500,000 and Senators Sh1 million. These are allegations in the public domain. Can we say this was fair when everybody says there was bribery?” said Wanjiru.