Former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua Abandons Reinstatement Bid to Seek Damages for Unlawful Ouster

Former DP Rigathi Gachagua shifts his legal battle to seek damages and lost pay after claiming his 2024 impeachment was unconstitutional.

By: AXL Media

Published: Apr 28, 2026, 7:54 AM EDT

Source: Information for this report was sourced from TUKO.co.ke

Former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua Abandons Reinstatement Bid to Seek Damages for Unlawful Ouster - article image
Former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua Abandons Reinstatement Bid to Seek Damages for Unlawful Ouster - article image

Shift in Legal Strategy Following Historic Impeachment

Rigathi Gachagua has officially ended his judicial attempt to be reinstated as the Deputy President of Kenya following his removal from office in October 2024. During a recent appearance at the Milimani Law Courts, his legal representatives, led by Senior Counsel Paul Muite, clarified that their focus has transitioned to an amended petition. This new legal direction primarily seeks financial compensation for lost remuneration and general damages, based on the assertion that his removal was a breach of legal standards.

Allegations of Unconstitutional Legislative Proceedings

The former second-in-command has maintained that the impeachment process conducted by the Senate failed to meet necessary constitutional thresholds. Gachagua’s legal team argued that the allegations leveled against him were both unfounded and vague, providing an insufficient basis for such a high profile removal. Furthermore, they pointed to a significant lack of meaningful public participation, which they claim is a mandatory requirement for a process of this magnitude to be considered valid under the law.

Concerns Over Medical Emergency and Voting Procedures

A central point of contention in the ongoing legal battle involves the timing of the Senate’s final vote. Lawyers for the former official criticized the legislative body for proceeding with the impeachment vote while Gachagua was critically ill and receiving hospital treatment. They asserted that the refusal to delay proceedings despite a medical emergency constituted a violation of his rights. This procedural grievance remains a cornerstone of the claim that the removal was executed unlawfully.

Categories

Topics

Related Coverage