Former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua at Milimani Law Courts on May 13, 2026 for the hearing of his legal challenge against his 2024 impeachment.
A fresh legal dispute has erupted over the High Court judgment that upheld former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua's impeachment, after some petitioners claimed the version released to parties differed from the one judges said they had delivered in open court.
Lawyers acting for Gema Watho Association, the 41st petitioner in the consolidated impeachment cases, have formally written to the Deputy Registrar of the Constitutional and Human Rights Division seeking what they described as the complete judgment, typed proceedings and audiovisual recordings of the June 8 proceedings.
In a letter dated June 12, the lawyers said Presiding Judge Eric Ogola told parties at the start of the proceedings that the judgment comprised 350 pages and that the three judges read portions of it until shortly after 9 p.m. before appending their signatures.
However, the advocates said the judgment supplied to parties three days later consisted of 286 pages and bore no judicial signatures.
"It is crystal clear that a whooping 64 pages are missing from the judgment," Kiragu Wathuta & Company Advocates said in the letter.
Justices Fridah Mugambi, Eric Ogolla and Anthony Mrima during the delivery of their judgment in the case against the impeachment of former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua at the Milimani High Court on June 8, 2026.
"Besides the judgment lacking the requisite validating signatures, no explanation has been rendered for the shortened version of the judgment from 350 pages to merely 286 pages," the lawyers added.
The letter marks the first formal challenge to the integrity of the judgment record in one of the country's most consequential constitutional disputes since the promulgation of the 2010 Constitution.
The three-judge bench of Justices Ogola, Anthony Mrima and Fridah Mugambi had largely upheld Parliament's October 2024 impeachment of Mr Gachagua.
The court rejected claims that the impeachment process was tainted by bias, inadequate public participation, unconstitutional standing orders and an unlawful succession process.
It held that impeachment proceedings remain subject to judicial scrutiny but found that Parliament had substantially complied with constitutional requirements.
The judges ruled that the National Assembly conducted adequate public participation and that the Senate was not required to undertake a separate exercise.
They also held that the approval of Prof Kithure Kindiki as Deputy President did not require public participation because Parliament exercised delegated sovereign authority on behalf of the people.
The court further found that the absence of a fully constituted electoral commission did not invalidate Prof Kindiki's succession.
The bench nevertheless found that senators violated Mr Gachagua's constitutional right to a fair hearing by refusing to adjourn proceedings despite acknowledging that he was ill and unable to complete his defence.
Also Read: Gachagua's next steps
The judges held that the Senate's decision created "a procedural imbalance" and breached Articles 47 and 50 of the Constitution.
"The right to a fair trial is absolute and does not yield to constitutional timelines or political exigency," the court said.
Even so, the judges concluded that the violation did not invalidate the Senate's decision to uphold the impeachment.
"The violation of the first petitioner's rights under Articles 47 and 50 of the Constitution does not vitiate the impeachment process undertaken under Article 145," the court ruled.
It awarded Mr Gachagua Sh50 million in constitutional damages but declined to reinstate him, holding that doing so would create the constitutional absurdity of having two Deputy Presidents in office simultaneously.
"The Constitution does not envisage two Deputy Presidents serving at the same time," the bench said.
Against that backdrop, the new concerns raised by petitioners have shifted attention from the merits of the impeachment to the integrity of the court record itself.
In their letter, the lawyers said they required the complete judgment, proceedings and audiovisual footage "for perusal, review and for purposes of lodging an appeal."
"The significance, import and attention incidental to this matter cannot be overstated," they wrote.
"Any deviation from the content of the proceedings that were conducted publicly gravely erodes the much needed confidence in the administration of justice."
The advocates said they had procured a hard drive to collect the audiovisual recordings and requested that the materials be supplied urgently or through a virtual link.
The Judiciary had not publicly responded to the allegations by Saturday.
The dispute now threatens to open a new front in the prolonged legal battle over Mr Gachagua's impeachment, with the focus turning from whether Parliament acted lawfully to whether the judgment record released to parties faithfully reflects what was delivered in open court.
Follow our WhatsApp channel for breaking news updates and more stories like this.
