Why Gachagua dropped DP reinstatement bid in favour of compensation millions

Mr Gachagua was voted out of office after barely serving for 24 months. His gross salary was about Sh1.2 million, comprising basic salary of Sh736,313, house allowance of Sh300,000 and official commuter allowance, among other perks.

The Retirement Benefits (Deputy President and Designated State Officers) Act, 2015, also assigned him a monthly pension equal to 80 percent of his monthly salary.

Appearing before a three-judge bench on Thursday, Mr Gachagua, through his lawyer Paul Muite, was allowed to amend his earlier petition to reflect the new prayers.

“My client wishes to place it on record that he does not wish to pursue any prayers or declarations regarding his being reinstated to the office of deputy president of the Republic of Kenya,” he submitted.

He clarified that that was among the prayers he had sought in his petition, but wanted to abandon.

“The petitioner will be vigorously challenging the legality and constitutionality of his impeachment and would be seeking to persuade this court to set it aside that impeachment. He will further seek to persuade this honoruable court to grant him the emoluments he would have earned had he served for the entire five years for which he had been elected by the Kenyan people, plus of course, appropriate damages,” Mr Muite said.

Justices Eric Ogola, Anthony Mrima and Dr Freda Mugambi allowed the application and directed the case to be mentioned on July 18, for directions.

MPs voted on October 8, 2024, to impeach Mr Gachagua and was eventually removed from office on October 17 after the Senate endorsed the 11 charges brought against him.

In the petition, Mr Gachagua argues that the impeachment motion did not meet the threshold test set by Article 145(1).

He further says the appropriate standard of proof was not considered or met when the National Assembly passed the impeachment resolution.

'Assault on family'

The former deputy president argued that the impeachment was converted into a vicarious assault on the family rather than investigation of constitutional violations by a public servant.

“The National Assembly and the Senate conducted themselves in an unconstitutional manner and denied the applicant the right to fair hearing. His rights under Article 50(1) of the constitution were breached,” he said in court documents.

He would be asking the court to consider several issues, including whether a motion for the removal of the Deputy President through impeachment can validly be prosecuted in the Senate without public participation.

Also Read: Return to sender: CJ Koome constitutes same bench Gachagua sued to hear impeachment cases

He further wants the court to determine whether Parliament should have considered new and ‘extraneous matters’ that were not raised in the special motion tabled before the National Assembly.

“What is the standard and mode of public participation that ought to be attained to support an impeachment motion against a democratically elected Deputy President, in the face of a motion that relies on fabricated evidence of public participation?” he said in the court documents.

The hearing of the cases was delayed after Mr Gachagua challenged the powers of the Deputy Chief Justice Philomena Mwilu to assign the files to the judges.

The Court of Appeal agreed with him and quashed the appointments and directed the Chief Justice, Martha Koome, to appoint another bench.

Justice Koome later picked the same bench to determine the cases.

A number of petitioners have sought to drop five of the cases, arguing that they raised similar issues. However, an activist said he would be opposing the same and wants the cases to proceed to full hearing.

[email protected]