Politics is akin to chess. Every move is calculated and thought out. While they strive to outmanoeuvre their opponents and stay a few moves ahead, politicians must always protect their standing. When a checkmate occurs in politics, a politician is left without any legal moves to escape. 

The impeachment of Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua has brought the high-stakes drama of political manoeuvring to the forefront. The unfolding events not only underscore the fragility of alliances but also the intense strategic calculations that shape Kenya’s political landscape.

DP Gachagua faced the full House of the National Assembly and the Senate as he fought attempts to remove him from office through impeachment.

He categorically denied all 11 charges brought against him in an impeachment motion initiated by Kibwezi West MP Eckomas Mwengi Mutuse. The motion sailed through the National Assembly after being endorsed by 282 MPs against 44 who opposed it. They accused Gachagua of gross misconduct and violations of the Constitution.

Members of Parliament

President William Ruto and opposition leader Raila Odinga’s allies rallied against Gachagua during the impeachment motion in the National Assembly.

During the motion, Gachagua was forced to apologise to the House for what the MPs felt were disdainful comments he made during a media address a day before the commencement of the motion to impeach him, which they argued demeaned them. The MPs later resolved to impeach him.

President William Ruto

During the entire process, President Ruto steered clear of his deputy’s impeachment. Gachagua blamed his boss for his woes when he said the ouster motion could not have seen the light of the day unless authorised by the President. When he saw he was on the verge of being kicked out, Gachagua appealed to his boss for forgiveness.

Kibwezi West MP

Kibwezi West MP Mwengi Mutuse, who moved the impeachment motion, found himself on the defence as he was cross-examined by the Deputy President’s lawyers at the Senate. Gachagua’s lawyers grilled the MP on his ouster motion as they sought to discredit the claims made in the documents tabled at Parliament.

Gachagua’s lawyers were clear on their strategy as they sought to expose cracks in MP Mutuse’s assertions.  

The MP told the Senate that he was not an investigator and that his aim was to force the Deputy President to take political responsibility for his actions. He said the purpose of his push to have the DP removed from office was neither to prove criminal nor civil culpability.

“I am not an investigator,” he said, responding to the senators’ concerns about the evidence of some of the allegations the National Assembly had submitted to the House in support of the impeachment trial. The MP added “I am a member of Parliament executing my role as provided for in the law. I am not an investigator. My role was not to provide direct evidence. Mine was to establish a prima facie case against the Deputy President.”

The Senate

The Senate cross-examined all witnesses before the Deputy President delivered his final defence, which culminated in a critical vote on each of the 11 charges.

The National Assembly, through its lawyers, prosecuted its case against DP Gachagua in his impeachment trial.  MP Mutuse was the first witness to take the stand, followed by Dr Andrew Mulwa, who briefly served as the acting CEO of the Kenya Medical Supplies Agency (KEMSA) and others. Dr Mulwa focused his evidence on the multimillion procurement of mosquito nets at the agency, which was allegedly awarded to a company linked to the DP and members of his family.

The Senate later upheld DP Gachagua’s impeachment.

Rigathi Gachagua

The Deputy President categorically denied all 11 charges brought against him. As the hearing unfolded at the Senate, Gachagua’s legal team, led by Senior Counsel Paul Muite, filed a preliminary objection. They sought to have Senior Counsel James Orengo barred from representing the National Assembly, arguing that Senior Counsel Orengo, a full-time State officer, should not be allowed to take part in the impeachment process.

“It would be prejudicial to our client if this House will allow Senior Counsel James Orengo to represent the National Assembly in this process,” submitted Gachagua’s legal team.

However, the National Assembly’s legal team dismissed the objection, ruling that Orengo’s appearance in the matter did not constitute gainful employment.

Gachagua’s legal team also sought to expunge what they described as new evidence, arguing that admitting it would disadvantage the Deputy President. Senate Speaker Amason Kingi tossed out all the preliminary objections, signalling an early setback for DP and his legal team. Gachagua lost bids to block the submission of new evidence, the presentation of new witnesses, and an objection to the composition of the National Assembly’s legal team.

With the Senate confirming his impeachment despite failing to testify at his impeachment trial after his lawyers said he had been admitted to the hospital, Gachagua’s battle is likely to move to the High Court, which could reinstate him in office if he establishes sufficient grounds until the petition is determined.  

The Judiciary

DP Gachagua pinned his faith on the Judiciary to fairly prosecute his impeachment motion.

Chief Justice (CJ) Martha Koome appointed a bench of three judges to determine all petitions challenging the impeachment process. The CJ appointed Justice Eric Ogola (presiding), Justice Anthony Mrima and Dr Fred Mugambi to hear the six petitions, which included one filed by Gachagua himself.

The petitions raised issues, including the constitutional validity of the standing orders that the National Assembly used to process the impeachment, particularly Standing Order 64(2) and (6). Gachagua faulted Standing Order 64(2) and (6) for providing a short duration of 12 days to complete the entire impeachment process, which impeded adequate and meaningful public participation, a critical constitutional requirement. Gachagua’s legal team also questioned Parliament’s impartiality in conducting the process.

However, the three-judge bench of the High Court declined to stop the Senate from proceeding with DP Gachagua’s impeachment trial.

In its ruling, the bench described the petitions as premature and anticipatory. The judges emphasised that interfering with the Senate’s constitutional mandate would undermine the principle of separation of powers.

“It is our view that this is not one such case where intervention is automatic. The issues raised by the parties will need to be interrogated in detail. Therefore, we find that the constitutional principle of separation of powers is best served by declining the application at this point,” the bench ruled.

Nevertheless, the High Court noted that Gachagua could approach it for orders once the Senate process is completed.

As the process unfolded, political pundits argued that the repercussions of the ouster motion outcome on President Ruto and DP Gachagua’s future political careers implied that neither could afford to lose.

Checkmate

The Senate’s impeachment of Gachagua paved the way for President Ruto’s nomination and subsequent approval of a replacement. 

Like the game of chess, the impeachment process was characterised by strategic thinking, power dynamics, constant movement, and high stakes. In both, foreseeing future moves is the basis of victory.