Rigathi Gachagua Demands Ruto Prove He Didn’t Orchestrate Impeachment
Rigathi Gachagua has adopted a bold legal strategy in his High Court challenge, demanding that William Ruto prove he did not orchestrate his impeachment.
In an amended petition, Gachagua argues that the alleged constitutional violations are so serious that the president must now demonstrate he had no role in the removal process.
Burden of Proof Dispute
Gachagua claims the impeachment violated Articles 1, 3, 38, 50 and 132(2) of the Constitution. He describes the process as an abuse of power and political persecution.
His legal team argues that the breaches are so glaring that the court should require the president to provide evidence showing his hands were clean.
The former Deputy President insists the impeachment was not merely political but unconstitutional.
Challenge to Parliamentary Procedures
The petition also attacks the procedural framework used during the impeachment.
Gachagua is asking the court to strike down:
-
Senate Standing Orders 78 and 79
-
National Assembly Standing Orders 64 and 65
He argues that these provisions violate Article 150(2) when applied to a Deputy President.
Furthermore, he wants both houses of Parliament to develop procedures that strictly comply with the Constitution.
Coalition Agreement Argument
In a separate argument, Gachagua points to the Kenya Kwanza Coalition Agreement signed on April 5, 2022.
He claims the agreement legally binds the president to nominate a replacement Deputy President from the Gikuyu, Embu or Meru communities.
The petition further argues that presidential nomination powers under Article 149 are subject to Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) certification under Articles 99 and 137.
According to the filing, the president cannot act unilaterally in filling the vacancy.
read:Lawyer Michael Owano, Osore Charged Over Sh62 Million Fraud
Sovereign Will of Voters
Gachagua and his co-petitioners maintain that millions of Kenyans elected him on August 9, 2022. They argue that impeachment should not be used to overturn the sovereign will of voters on what they describe as frivolous grounds.
The petition states that impeachment is both a political and legal process. However, it insists that the constitutional provisions were never intended to settle political disputes.
What Happens Next
The High Court will now determine whether the president must respond directly to the allegations or whether the matter proceeds under traditional legal standards.
The case is expected to test the limits of presidential authority, parliamentary procedure and constitutional safeguards.