IMPEACHMENT OF FORMER DEPUTY PRESIDENT RIGATHI GACHAGUA

Despite Gachagua's denial of these charges, the National Assembly voted overwhelmingly to approve the impeachment. The case then moved to the Senate, which ultimately upheld five of the charges against him, leading to his removal from office. Gachagua's lawyers attempted to postpone the proceedings due to his sudden hospitalization, but the Senate continued with the trial in his absence, resulting in a historic ruling for Kenya's constitutional democracy

PROCESS OF IMPEACHMENT

The impeachment process of Kenya's Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua followed a constitutional pathway involving both the National Assembly and the Senate. Here’s an overview of the key steps:

The motion was introduced by MP Mwengi Mutuse in the National Assembly. He presented eleven charges against Gachagua, ranging from gross misconduct and abuse of office to divisive rhetoric and undermining the judiciary

 Gachagua planned to defend himself, but he was hospitalized before the Senate hearings, citing chest pains. His legal team requested a postponement, but the Senate continued proceedings in his absence. During the trial, five of the eleven charges were upheld.

Senate Vote and Removal from Office: The Senate concluded its hearings with a vote. A two-thirds majority was required to finalize the impeachment, which they achieved. This decision immediately removed Gachagua from office, marking a significant constitutional precedent for Kenya.

Following the Senate's decision, the president has 14 days to nominate a new deputy, subject to National Assembly approval. If Gachagua chooses, he may still challenge the ruling in court, although such a move could face limitations given the Senate's verdict.

ACCUSATIONS THAT LED TO IMPEACHMENT

The impeachment of Kenya's Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua stemmed from a series of serious accusations. Lawmakers outlined eleven charges that formed the basis for his removal. Key accusations included:

 -Misconduct and Abuse of Office: Gachagua was accused of gross misconduct, particularly involving his alleged misuse of power to influence government decisions and resources for personal gain.

 -Irregular Wealth Acquisition: He was alleged to have accumulated wealth through irregular means, which raised concerns about corruption and unethical financial dealings.

-Undermining the President: Gachagua reportedly took actions that undermined the authority and policies of President William Ruto, straining their working relationship and sowing political discord within the government.

-Ethnic Incitement and Divisive Rhetoric: He was accused of making inflammatory statements that promoted ethnic divisions, a serious issue in Kenya’s multi-ethnic society.

 -Compromising Judicial Independence: The Deputy President was alleged to have interfered with the judiciary, raising concerns over attempts to influence legal and judicial processes for political ends.

These accusations, combined with political dynamics within Kenya’s leadership, led to a successful impeachment vote in both the National Assembly and Senate, which ultimately resulted in Gachagua’s removal from office.

COURT DETAILS ON HANDLING THE CASE OF IMPEACHMENT

The Kenyan judiciary is managing the impeachment case of Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua through multiple complex legal proceedings and appeals. After Gachagua challenged the impeachment process, his case was assigned to a three-judge High Court bench appointed by Deputy Chief Justice Philomena Mwilu. Gachagua's legal team argued this appointment was invalid, claiming only the Chief Justice has the authority to empanel judges. However, the bench dismissed this claim, ruling that the Deputy Chief Justice can perform certain duties of the Chief Justice when needed.

Gachagua also petitioned for the judges’ recusal, alleging bias due to their connections with political figures involved in his case. 

This request was rejected as the judges determined that no valid grounds for recusal were met. The High Court maintained that the issues raised in Gachagua’s petitions were significant enough to warrant a detailed judicial review, especially regarding claims of insufficient public participation and procedural fairness in Parliament’s handling of the impeachment.

Gachagua has since appealed to the Court of Appeal, seeking an injunction to halt the High Court proceedings until his appeal is reviewed. This ongoing appeal highlights unresolved questions about the constitutionality and procedural aspects of his impeachment, which the judiciary will continue to assess in the coming hearings.

CONCLUSION ON IMPEACHMENT.

The impeachment of Kenya's Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua concluded with significant implications for both Kenyan politics and constitutional law. The case highlighted challenges around accountability, public participation, and the balance of power within government. 

Key conclusions from the process include:

Political and Legal Implications: Gachagua’s removal underscored the role of impeachment as a tool for addressing alleged misconduct at high levels of government. The allegations, including corruption, divisive rhetoric, and abuse of office, brought to light the expectations of integrity in leadership positions. It also demonstrated the legislature's power to hold even top leaders accountable through formal proceedings.

Public Participation and Legal Procedures: Gachagua's legal team argued that public input in the impeachment process was insufficient, raising broader questions about citizen involvement in governmental decisions. The judiciary’s handling of this matter, including the appointment of a three-judge bench for constitutional review, reflects ongoing discussions in Kenya about ensuring transparency and due process in legislative and judicial actions.

Judicial Precedents: The impeachment proceedings set a constitutional precedent, clarifying the limits of judicial recusal and the authority of both the Chief Justice and Deputy Chief Justice in empaneling judges for high-stakes cases. The High Court's rejection of Gachagua's appeal for judicial recusal underscored the judiciary’s commitment to impartiality despite political sensitivities.