Court allows Gachagua's affidavit claiming Ruto's hospital call during impeachment

The High Court has allowed into the record a supplementary affidavit filed by former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua containing claims that President William Ruto personally called a hospital to inquire about his condition during the period leading up to his impeachment.

The affidavit, sworn by renowned cardiologist Dr Daniel Kibuka Gikonyo, had been challenged by lawyers representing state agencies and other respondents in the impeachment petition.

They sought to have it struck out, with the State arguing it was filed without leave of the court and that it introduced new matters requiring verification.

But the three-judge bench declined to expunge the affidavit, ruling that it would remain part of the court record in the wider interest of justice.

“In spite of having noted that the petitioners did not address the apparent delay in filing the affidavit, we nevertheless deem the said affidavit duly filed and properly on record in the wider interest of justice,” Justice Eric Ogolla said in a ruling delivered on behalf of the bench.

The affidavit, dated April 28, 2026, was sworn by Dr Gikonyo of Karen Hospital and a specialist in adult cardiology, who stated that Gachagua had been admitted to Karen Hospital on October 17, 2024, after complaining of severe chest pain.

According to the doctor, the former Deputy President had been under his care since 2006 and was admitted for close monitoring and specialised treatment following a comprehensive cardiac assessment.

Dr Gikonyo stated in the affidavit that while Gachagua was under his care, President Ruto telephoned him to inquire about the former Deputy President’s condition.

“On October 17, 2024, while the 1st Petitioner (Gachagua) was under my care, I received a telephone call from the President of the Republic of Kenya, H.E William Ruto, who inquired as to the 1st Petitioner’s condition and I confirmed that the 1st Petitioner had indeed been admitted at Karen Hospital, Nairobi and was receiving treatment under my care,” the affidavit reads.

The disclosure emerged as a major point of contention during Thursday’s proceedings, with lawyers for the State arguing that the affidavit introduced fresh and weighty allegations that had not previously been placed before the Senate during the impeachment process.

The state lawyers argued that the claims, particularly those relating to the alleged phone call by the President, required independent verification and rebuttal before being admitted into the proceedings.

They further questioned why Gachagua had waited nearly one and a half years after the alleged events to introduce the affidavit, saying no satisfactory explanation had been offered for the delay.

The respondents also argued that the evidence was not presented before the Senate during the impeachment hearings and should therefore not form part of the current constitutional petition challenging the impeachment process.

But Gachagua’s legal team defended the affidavit, insisting it was relevant to the issues before the court and necessary in establishing that he was indeed unwell during the impeachment period.

His lawyer, Faith Waigwa, told the court that the affidavit did not alter the scope of the petition but instead provided expert medical confirmation regarding Gachagua’s health condition at the material time.

“Established jurisprudence fully supports the admission of the impugned affidavit material in the interest of justice,” Waigwa submitted.

The legal team further argued that declining to admit the affidavit would unfairly prejudice Gachagua’s case and deny him an opportunity to fully present his evidence before the court.

The bench ultimately agreed to retain the affidavit despite concerns raised over the delay in filing.

The matter is scheduled for further hearing on May 13, 2026, when Dr Gikonyo is expected to appear before the court to shed more light on the contents of his affidavit and the circumstances surrounding Gachagua’s hospital admission.

The petition before the court challenges the legality and constitutionality of Gachagua’s impeachment as Deputy President.