Gachagua demands full term salary after ‘unlawful’ ouster

Former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua now wants damages, including salaries for the months he has been out of office, citing unlawful impeachment.

Gachagua, through his lawyer senior counsel Paul Muite, yesterday told the High Court that he wants to amend the petition challenging his impeachment to claim compensation.

Muite told judges Eric Ogola, Anthony Mrima and Ferda Mugambi that he wants leave to amend his original prayers, which included the bid for reinstatement to office.

Initially, Gachagua wanted the court to declare his ouster null and void and be reinstated.

“Those are the prayers of declaration which the petitioner (Rigathi Gachagua) wishes to be abandoned,” Muite told the judges.

Instead, Gachagua says he wants to pursue compensation equivalent to what he would have earned had he served the full five-year term following his election in August 2022 as Deputy President.

Gachagua was impeached in October last year after the Senate approved charges that were levelled against him by the National Assembly.

A Deputy President earns a monthly salary of Sh1,227,188 plus allowances.

“The petitioner wishes to challenge the legality of his impeachment and will be seeking leave to amend the prayers. He will be asking for the money he would have earned had he served the full five-year term,” Muite said.

Gachagua’s case, initially filed under a certificate of urgency, was classified as being of public interest. However, Muite yesterday said the case is now a personal matter.

“This petition is not a matter of public interest. It is a personal matter that directly affects the petitioner, who is the one impeached,” Muite said.

Gachagua’s amended petition will focus solely on the constitutional and legal validity of his impeachment.

“The petitioner will now be vigorously challenging the legality and constitutionality of his impeachment and will be seeking to persuade this court to grant him the amount he would have earned had he served for the entire five years for which he had been elected by the Kenyan people.”

The respondents, who include the National Assembly and the Senate and the Attorney General, did not object to Gachagua’s request to amend the petition.

The judges allowed the application and directed that the matter be mentioned on June 19.

“Leave is hereby granted to the petitioners to further amend their respective petitions, if need be, within seven days from today. Leave is also granted to the respondents to further amend, as the case may be, their respective responses in the petition also within seven days,” the court ruled.

Gachagua’s renewed fight comes after the Court of Appeal on May 9 ruled that Deputy Chief Justice Philomena Mwilu did not have powers to constitute a bench that heard his initial petitions against the impeachment.

Justices Daniel Musinga (president), Mumbi Ngugi and Francis Tuiyott ruled that assigning judges is a constitutional duty of only the Chief Justice.

Gachagua’s lawyers had challenged the decision by Mwilu to remit files to the bench of Judges Eric Ogola (presiding), Mrima and Mugambi to hear as consolidated petitions that challenged Gachagua’s impeachment in October last year.

The bench had initially been constituted by Chief Justice Martha Koome.

However, more petitions were filed as the impeachment process progressed, culminating in the Senate approval of the ouster motion from the National Assembly.

More petitions were then filed in the High Court in Kerugoya, including where orders were issued stopping then Deputy President nominee Kithure Kindiki from being sworn in.

There were also orders stopping President William Ruto from appointing Gachagua’s replacement as Deputy President following the impeachment.

It is the files containing those orders that were referred to the Chief Justice for empanelling a bench.

However, given that Koome was out of the country at the time, her deputy Mwilu remitted the files to the Justice Ogola-led bench.

Gachagua’s lawyers contested that decision, arguing that Mwilu did not have powers to remit the files to the bench.

Such an action, they argued, amounted to assigning the judges to hear the petitions.

But Justices Ogola, Mrima and Mugambi ruled it was proper for Mwilu to refer the files to the bench, terming it an administrative duty.

The Court of Appeal disagreed.