Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua finds himself at the center of a political storm, having recently filed a 144-page petition with the Milimani High Court to halt public participation in an impeachment motion tabled against him.
His legal team argues that the impending debate in Parliament is not only unconstitutional but also rooted in lies, specifically the sensational allegation that he amassed wealth totaling Kshs 5.2 billion within two years.
In his petition, Gachagua contends that the impeachment process threatens the democratic will of the 7.1 million Kenyans who voted for him during the August 2022 presidential elections.
He accuses his political opponents of engaging in what he terms “political lynching,” asserting that the motion lacks credible grounds for impeachment and undermines the principles of justice and fairness.
Gachagua expresses particular concern over the potential bias of the National Assembly’s leadership, including Speaker Moses Wetangula and Deputy Speaker Gladys Shollei, who have publicly indicated support for the impeachment motion.
He argues that the participation process cannot be trusted to those who have already taken a stance against him, insisting that an independent body should oversee any public consultation.
Moreover, Gachagua highlights the logistical challenges of the public participation forums, scheduled to take place at just one location per county.
He asserts that such a setup effectively disenfranchises the vast majority of Kenyans, making it nearly impossible for them to voice their opinions on a matter that profoundly impacts their democratic rights.
Drawing on Article 138(2) of the Constitution, he asserts that any discussion around his impeachment should involve engagement at the constituency level—specifically the 290 constituencies where the presidential vote was cast—rather than limiting participation to county forums.
In addition to contesting the impeachment process, Gachagua vehemently denies the corruption allegations against him, claiming they are unfounded and malicious.
He refutes claims about his wealth accumulation, providing context for the properties listed in the impeachment motion.
For instance, he clarifies that the Outspan Hotel was acquired through a bank loan, and he has been transparent about its ownership.
He also explains that properties attributed to him, like Olive Gardens Hotel and Queens Gate Serviced Apartments, actually belonged to his late brother, who appointed him as co-executor of his estate.
As the legal battle unfolds, Gachagua seeks a court order to prevent the National Assembly from proceeding with the impeachment motion.
He argues that the process must adhere strictly to constitutional provisions and parliamentary rules, cautioning that any rush to judgment would undermine not only his rights but also the democratic fabric of the nation.
Gachagua’s petition is not the first to challenge the impeachment motion; several prior petitions filed by allies and rights groups have already been deemed urgent by the court.
As the deadline for public participation approaches, the political landscape remains tense, with Gachagua firmly asserting his innocence and commitment to defending his position.
With a determined resolve, Gachagua stands at the crossroads of a pivotal moment in Kenyan politics, eager to protect not just his office, but the principles of democracy that underpin the nation’s governance.
As he awaits the court’s decision, the implications of this legal battle could resonate far beyond his own political future, shaping the discourse around accountability, public participation, and the sanctity of electoral choices in Kenya.
