Petitioners challenging Rigathi Gachagua’s impeachment on Thursday accused President William Ruto’s administration of orchestrating a calculated political purge through a “captured Parliament”.
They told the High Court that constitutional safeguards were deliberately dismantled to remove a “powerful Mt Kenya rival from government” ahead of the 2027 polls, arguing that Mr Gachagua was “a victim of political conspiracy”.
Appearing before a three-judge bench of the Constitutional and Human Rights Division, the petitioners argued that the October 2024 impeachment was driven by political fallout within the Kenya Kwanza administration rather than constitutional accountability.
They linked the fallout to the Gen Z anti-government protests and growing succession tensions ahead of the 2027 General Election, framing the case against Mr Gachagua’s ouster as a “fight for the soul of the Constitution”.
Parliament accused of acting as Executive tool
Lawyers representing various groups and individuals told the court that Parliament had been “captured” by the Executive and used impeachment as a political management tool rather than a constitutional accountability process.
Lawyer Jane Njeri Maina, in her submissions, told the court that the impeachment process amounted to a “systematic constitutional collapse.”
Ms Maina argued that Parliament ignored court orders requiring public participation hearings at the constituency level and instead conducted what she described as a rushed and defective process.
She claimed that rather than complying with the court orders, Parliament issued “vague notices” and failed to organise proper hearings.
“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 said the National Assembly reduced complex constitutional allegations into a “YES/NO” template that denied citizens meaningful participation before MPs voted 281-44 to impeach Mr Gachagua.
The motion was then transmitted to the Senate, which upheld the impeachment by a vote of 54-13 while Mr Gachagua was admitted to hospital.
“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 Ms Maina.
She argued that the Senate compounded the alleged constitutional violations by failing to conduct any public participation proceedings before determining Mr Gachagua’s fate.
Senate procedure challenged in court
Ms Maina also challenged the Senate’s decision to sit as a committee of the whole House instead of appointing an 11-member special committee to investigate the charges levelled against Mr Gachagua.
The issue emerged as one of the central constitutional questions before the court, with Ms Maina arguing that Article 145 of the Constitution required the Senate to establish the special committee before debating or voting on impeachment charges.
According to the petitioners, bypassing the committee denied Mr Gachagua a critical constitutional hearing stage and stripped him of procedural protections guaranteed under Article 50.
“Absent a committee report, the constitutional gateway to plenary determination is not opened. The Senate cannot lawfully collapse investigation and adjudication into one political process,” Ms Maina argued.
“The Special Committee is not a procedural ornament. It is the investigative heart of the impeachment process,” she added.
‘No constitutional office is safe’
Lawyer Kibe Mungai, representing another group of co-petitioners including the Gema Watho Association, argued that the impeachment proceedings reflected a dangerous collapse of constitutional safeguards.
The Gema Watho Association was described in court as an umbrella body of more than 1,000 advocates practising across the Mt Kenya region.
“The impeachment proceedings against the first petitioner were triggered by political fallout between him and the President as opposed to the genuine existence of any grounds,” Mr Mungai stated in his submissions.
The petitioners accused President Ruto and his allies of weaponising Parliament to settle political disputes, arguing that the impeachment formed part of an early political realignment targeting the 2027 succession contest.
They maintained that Parliament abandoned its constitutional independence and instead acted as an extension of the Executive.
“The 13th Parliament has been captured by the Executive,” the petitioners argued, adding that MPs and senators failed to act impartially during the impeachment hearings.
“If Parliament can be used to remove a Deputy President, no constitutional office is safe,” they said.
Petitioners seek nullification of impeachment
The court battle also reopened sharp political and constitutional questions surrounding the historic impeachment, which made Mr Gachagua the first Deputy President removed under the 2010 Constitution.
The petitioners claimed that the process violated constitutional guarantees on fair hearing, public participation and separation of powers.
Mr Mungai told the judges that impeachment proceedings are deliberately designed to protect constitutional order from political abuse.
He argued that the framers of the Constitution intended impeachment to address serious constitutional violations rather than political disagreements within government.
“There was no impeachment in the Gachagua case. It was a mockery of the Constitution. He was impeached as though he was the President. That was a transgression and breach of the Constitution. He was denied the available legal tools for a fair hearing,” said lawyer Ndegwa Njiru.
The petitioners also linked the fallout to Mr Gachagua’s growing political influence in the Mt Kenya region and his increasingly public disagreements with sections of government.
Court filings referred to tensions following Cabinet decisions, disagreements over the handling of anti-government protests and widening political cracks within Kenya Kwanza.
The petitioners are seeking court declarations quashing both the National Assembly and Senate resolutions that removed Mr Gachagua from office.
