Kenya's High Court Rules on the Impeachment of Former Deputy President Gachagua — A Verdict That Could Reshape the Country's Political Future
Nairobi, 8 June 2026
A Kenyan High Court delivered its ruling today on the legality of Rigathi Gachagua’s 2024 impeachment — the first of its kind in Kenyan history — with Gachagua absent and seeking over Sh80 million in compensation.
A Court in the Spotlight
On the morning of Monday, 8 June 2026, Nairobi’s Milimani Law Courts became the focal point of Kenyan political life, as a three-judge High Court bench comprising Justices Eric Ogola, Anthony Murima, and Freda Mugambi delivered their long-awaited verdict on the consolidated petitions challenging the removal of former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua from office [3][4][5]. Outside the courthouse, security forces were deployed in significant numbers as hundreds of supporters and political figures gathered in a show of solidarity with the former deputy president [1][2]. The atmosphere underscored just how charged this moment was — not only for Gachagua’s political allies, but for every Kenyan with a stake in the constitutional integrity of the country’s highest offices [GPT].
The Absent Defendant
Notably, Gachagua himself was not present in the courtroom when the verdict was read [3]. His absence did not, however, delay proceedings. The bench declined an application to postpone the judgement, which had been submitted by lawyer Harrison Kinyanjui on behalf of petitioner Enock Aura, and pressed ahead regardless [3]. This was a deliberate signal from the judiciary that the wheels of constitutional justice would not be stalled by procedural manoeuvres — a point that will not have been lost on Kenya’s broader legal community [GPT].
How Kenya Arrived at This Moment
To understand the weight of Monday’s ruling, it is necessary to revisit the sequence of events that brought this case to court. On 8 October 2024, Gachagua was impeached by the National Assembly, making him the first deputy president in Kenya’s constitutional history to be removed from office through the formal impeachment process [3]. The Senate subsequently upheld five of the eleven charges levelled against him on 17 October 2024, cementing his removal [3]. The charges that were upheld included making divisive so-called ‘shareholding’ remarks, undermining the Judiciary, violating the National Cohesion and Integration Act, publicly attacking the National Intelligence Service (NIS) and its officers, and acquiring Sh5.2 billion in unexplained wealth within a two-year period in office [3]. Gachagua initially challenged his removal on the grounds that he had been hospitalised and was therefore unable to defend himself adequately during the Senate proceedings [3]. He subsequently abandoned his bid to reclaim his former office, shifting his legal strategy entirely [3].
From Reinstatement to Compensation
With reinstatement no longer on the table, Gachagua’s legal team redirected their efforts towards financial redress. The former deputy president is seeking more than Sh80 million in compensation and damages from the Kenyan government [3]. This sum includes over Sh56 million for the remainder of his unserved five-year term, a lump-sum retirement package, a monthly pension of approximately Sh980,000, comprehensive medical cover, and the restoration of state privileges including official vehicles, armed security, VIP airport access, and diplomatic passports [3]. The High Court is also expected to rule on this compensation and benefits lawsuit in due course, a decision that will define the constitutional limits of impeachment and clarify what entitlements, if any, former senior officials retain after removal from office [3][alert! ‘No specific date has been confirmed in the source material for when the compensation ruling will be delivered’].
What This Means for Kenya’s Constitutional Order — and for Refugees in the Region
The significance of Monday’s ruling extends well beyond the fate of one politician. Kenya’s constitution, adopted in 2010, was designed to establish clear checks and balances between the executive and legislature [GPT]. This case tests those mechanisms in a direct and unprecedented way — the outcome will either reinforce or call into question parliament’s authority to remove a sitting deputy president, and by extension, the constitutional constraints that govern all senior executive officeholders [GPT]. For the millions of refugees from across East Africa who find shelter in Kenya — particularly in sprawling settlements such as Dadaab and Kakuma in Turkana County — political stability in Nairobi is not an abstract concern [GPT]. Kenya hosts one of the largest refugee populations on the African continent, and shifts in the domestic political landscape, including changes in government policy triggered by electoral or constitutional upheaval, have historically had a direct bearing on border security, refugee rights, and the humanitarian programmes that sustain both displaced populations and the local Kenyan communities that host them [GPT]. With the 2027 general elections on the horizon, the manner in which this verdict lands — and how political actors respond to it — will be a key variable in assessing Kenya’s stability in the months ahead [GPT].