NAIROBI, Kenya — Former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua has formally abandoned his bid to be reinstated to office, opting instead to pursue compensation in his ongoing constitutional challenge against his impeachment.
The shift in strategy emerged during proceedings on Monday before a three-judge bench of the High Court comprising Eric Ogolla, Anthony Mrima, and Freda Mugambi.
Gachagua’s legal team, led by Senior Counsel Paul Muite, told the court that the amended petition no longer includes a request for reinstatement. Instead, it now centres on compensation and legal declarations challenging the constitutionality of the impeachment process.
“The petitioner has abandoned the prayer for reinstatement as Deputy President,” the court was told.
According to the revised petition, Gachagua is seeking financial redress for lost income, damages, and other benefits arising from what he describes as an unlawful removal from office.
His legal team argues that the impeachment process conducted under Parliament of Kenya failed to meet constitutional thresholds, particularly on public participation and due process.
“For the period of the two years that Gachagua served as the Deputy President, it is our submission that Article 151 if the Constitution is applicable. Impeachment cannot have been retrospective,” Counsel Muite noted.
At the centre of the petition are allegations that the impeachment process was procedurally flawed and predetermined. Gachagua contends that public participation was inadequate, arguing that citizens were not provided with sufficient or balanced information to form informed opinions.
He further claims that his right to a fair hearing was undermined during the proceedings.
“On the day he was supposed to defend himself, he fell ill. The Senate went ahead to impeach him by approving 5 out of 11 charges. There was absolutely no attempt by the National Assembly and the Senate to apply their minds to the gross violation of the constitution,” he said.
“What is alleged must be Serious, substantial and weighty. The allegations were vague, lacking in detail and wholly unfounded.”
The petition reportedly raises 18 constitutional questions for determination by the bench, signalling a broad legal challenge that could shape future interpretations of impeachment procedures in Kenya.
Gachagua’s decision to drop the reinstatement bid marks a significant pivot, suggesting a strategic focus on legal vindication and financial compensation rather than political restoration.
Also Read: Political war erupts as Gachagua blasts Ruto over governance failures
Legal analysts note that the case could set an important precedent on how impeachment proceedings are conducted, particularly around public participation, evidentiary thresholds, and procedural fairness under Kenya’s 2010 Constitution.
The hearings also come amid heightened political tensions ahead of the 2027 election cycle, where questions around accountability, institutional independence, and executive power remain central to public discourse.
The High Court is scheduled to continue hearing the case on May 7 and May 8. Earlier plans for consecutive hearings were adjusted due to scheduling constraints linked to interviews for Supreme Court positions, in which one of the presiding judges is involved.
