NAIROBI, Kenya, Jun 14 – A legal dispute surrounding the impeachment of former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua has taken a new twist after his lawyers raised concerns over an alleged discrepancy between the judgment delivered by the High Court and the certified copy issued to parties.
In a letter to the court registry, Gachagua’s legal team questioned what they termed an unexplained omission of 64 pages from the judgment delivered on June 8, 2026.
According to lawyer Ndegwa Njiru, Justice Erick Ogola informed advocates in court that the three-judge bench was delivering a 350-page ruling.
However, parties were later served with a version comprising 286 pages.
“On June 8, 2026, at approximately 12:30 PM, during the delivery of H.E. Rigathi Gachagua’s impeachment judgment, Hon. Justice Erick Ogola informed advocates present that the court was delivering a 350-page verdict. However, the parties were subsequently served with a judgment consisting of 286 pages. This means the judgment falls short by 64 pages,” Njiru stated.
He further posed a series of questions seeking clarification on the discrepancy, asking what happened to the missing pages, whether any alterations were made, who authorised them, and who stands to benefit from the changes.
The petition arises from the judgment delivered by a three-judge bench comprising Justices Anthony Mrima, Freda Mugambi, and Erick Ogola in consolidated constitutional petitions challenging Gachagua’s impeachment.
The bench, after nearly 10 hours of proceedings in open court, upheld the impeachment, finding that both the National Assembly and the Senate acted within their constitutional mandates in removing Gachagua from office.
The judges ruled that while courts retain authority to interpret the Constitution and examine whether legal thresholds were met during impeachment, they cannot reverse a completed removal once constitutional procedures have been concluded.
They further held that the Constitution does not allow reinstatement of an impeached Deputy President once a successor has been lawfully appointed under Article 149(1), warning that such a scenario could result in an unconstitutional situation of two individuals holding the same office.
The court also upheld the appointment of Kithure Kindiki as Deputy President, ruling that the process did not require public participation and that there was no conflict of interest since he had resigned as Interior Cabinet Secretary before assuming office.
While dismissing petitions seeking to overturn the impeachment, the bench found that Gachagua’s right to a fair hearing was violated when the Senate proceeded with hearings despite his request for an adjournment on medical grounds.
As a result, the court awarded him Sh50 million in constitutional damages, to be paid by the Senate, stating that the compensation was necessary to uphold constitutional values, restore dignity, and deter future violations in impeachment proceedings.
The court also directed Parliament to establish a dedicated legal framework governing the impeachment of a Deputy President under Article 150 of the Constitution.
At the time of publication, the judiciary had not issued a response to the allegations raised by Gachagua’s legal team regarding the alleged discrepancy in the judgment.
The development is expected to intensify scrutiny of one of Kenya’s most consequential constitutional rulings in recent years, as the former Deputy President’s lawyers push for clarity on whether the version served to litigants matches the judgment delivered in open court.