Former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua has now abandoned his bid to be reinstated as Kenya’s Deputy President and is instead focusing on seeking payment for services rendered while in office before he was removed in October 2024.
In the case he filed challenging his impeachment, Gachagua changed his request on April 27, 2026, saying he is now pursuing compensation as well as retirement benefits.
His lawyers are now concentrating on persuading the court to award him a substantial financial settlement, despite having left office nearly one and a half years ago.
Under retirement benefits laws, a Deputy President is entitled to 80 percent of the last salary earned, plus a lump-sum payment calculated from one year’s salary for every year served.
The Deputy President earns about KSh1.2 million monthly, made up of a basic salary of KSh736,313, house allowance of KSh300,000, and other benefits.
The office holder is also entitled to two vehicles and one four-wheel-drive vehicle, replaced every four years.
Additional benefits include a fuel allowance worth 15 percent of salary, comprehensive medical cover for the office holder and family, staff support, passports for the official and spouse, access to VIP airport lounges, and security if needed.
Before a three-judge bench of Justices Erick Ogolla, Anthony Mrima, and Frida Mugambi, Gachagua’s lawyers said the case no longer centers on restoring him to office, but on compensation for what they described as an unlawful removal.
Senior Counsel Paul Muite, who is leading Gachagua’s legal team, told the court at Milimani Law Courts in Nairobi that their client had formally withdrawn the request for reinstatement.
“The petitioner has withdrawn the prayer for reinstatement as Deputy President,” Muite said.
He added that they now want the court to declare the removal process unlawful so that Gachagua can be paid salary and benefits due to the Deputy President from 2022 to 2025.
Apart from salary arrears, they are also seeking retirement benefits and other entitlements linked to the office.
Muite portrayed the case as one now aimed at financial compensation rather than political rivalry, as it had initially appeared when Gachagua was impeached.
He argued that the impeachment process in the National Assembly and Senate was rushed and failed to meet constitutional standards.
“There was no meaningful public participation, and what took place did not give citizens a chance to hear Gachagua’s side,” he said, adding that the public only received allegations from the National Assembly.
Gachagua attended the hearing accompanied by his wife Dorcas and political allies, as his lawyers consolidated all petitions challenging his 2024 removal.
The lawyers also questioned why parliamentary sittings continued late into the night, despite normal working hours being during the day.
Muite further claimed that the public participation meeting held at Bomas of Kenya was led by some ODM MPs from Nairobi County.
Lawyer Elisha Ongoya also argued that the process was predetermined and did not follow the law.
“The process only went on as a formality, yet the truth is that Gachagua’s fate had already been decided,” Ongoya said.
He also said the phrase “shareholding government” should not have been used against Gachagua because it was part of the Kenya Kwanza coalition power-sharing agreement.
Lawyer Dudley Ochiel argued that the Senate failed to follow the Constitution by not appointing a special committee to investigate the allegations against Gachagua, denying him a fair hearing.
Another lawyer, Tom Macharia, said Gachagua’s troubles began during the Gen Z protests in June 2024.
He claimed the fallout started after Gachagua criticized the National Intelligence Service and other security agencies over their handling of the protests.
The case will continue on May 7.
Leave a comment