Supreme Court declines to intervene in Gachagua impeachment bench dispute

The Supreme Court has dismissed two consolidated applications filed by former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua and the National Assembly in a protracted legal battle arising from the impeachment proceedings against him, specifically over the empanelment of a High Court bench to hear related constitutional petitions.

In a ruling delivered yesterday, January 30, 2026, the apex court, led by Chief Justice Martha Koome, declined to grant the orders sought by either party, holding that the applications failed to meet the legal threshold required for summary dismissal or intervention at this stage.

The dispute traces its origins to October 2024, when Gachagua was impeached by the National Assembly. Following the impeachment, several petitions were filed in High Courts across the country by Gachagua and other parties, challenging various aspects of the parliamentary process. The petitions raised weighty constitutional questions, including the legality of the impeachment process and the roles of different constitutional offices.

Given the significance of the issues raised, the matters were referred to the Chief Justice under Article 165(4) of the Constitution for the empanelment of a special bench. On October 14, 2024, Chief Justice Koome constituted a three-judge bench to hear the first cluster of six petitions, including applications seeking to halt Senate proceedings on the impeachment.

As events unfolded, a second cluster of petitions was filed, including fresh cases by Gachagua and others seeking to block the Senate from confirming the impeachment and to stop the swearing-in of Prof. Kithure Kindiki as Deputy President. At the time, the Chief Justice was absent, and the Deputy Chief Justice empanelled the same three-judge bench to hear the new petitions, a move that triggered further litigation.

Gachagua challenged the Deputy Chief Justice’s authority to empanel the bench, arguing that the power is vested exclusively in the Chief Justice. He also sought the recusal of all three judges, alleging bias and conflict of interest. The High Court dismissed both applications, ruling that judge assignment is an administrative function that can be delegated and that no grounds for recusal had been established.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the decision on recusal but diverged on empanelment, holding that the power to constitute High Court benches lies exclusively with the Chief Justice and is not delegable, save for exceptional circumstances. This interpretation prompted the National Assembly’s appeal to the Supreme Court.

In its latest ruling, the Supreme Court clarified that the only issue before it is the question of empanelment, not the impeachment itself, which remains pending before the High Court.