Gachagua impeachment: Lawyers raise alarm over missing pages, Judges signatures

Lawyers involved in the impeachment of former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua case raises questions about the integrity of the judgment issued by the High Court claiming that the version supplied to parties differs significantly from the one delivered in open court.

In a letter to the Deputy Registrar of the Constitutional and Human Rights Division at Milimani Law Courts on Friday, Kiragu Wathuta & Company Advocates that the version supplied to parties is incomplete as 64 pages are missing and bears no judicial signatures whatsoever.

According to the firm, which represents the GEMA Watho Association,the 41st petitioner in the consolidated case involving Gachagua and 57 other parties,the copy they received contains 286 pages instead of the 350 pages reportedly indicated by the three-judge bench during the delivery of the ruling on Monday, June 8.

They say that decision lacks authenticity since Justice Eric Ogola, who presided over the bench alongside Justices Antony Mrima and Frida Mugambi stated at the start of proceedings that the judgment comprised 350 pages.

The delivery ran late into the night, with the judges taking turns reading different sections of the decision.

The advocates also assert that the judges appended their signatures to the judgment after reading it in open court around 9pm.

However, upon receiving a copy of the judgment on Friday June 12, the lawyers say they discovered what they describe as major discrepancies.

"We have, today (June 12, 2026) received a judgment dated June 8, 2026. From a glance at the judgment we note that firstly, the judgment is not signed by the Honourable Judges either at the end or at any part whatsoever," the letter states.

The advocates further contend that the judgment supplied comprises only 286 pages.

"It is crystal clear that a whooping 64 pages are missing from the judgment," the letter by senior advocate Paul Kiragu Wathuta states.

"Besides the judgment lacking the requisite validating signatures, no explanation has been rendered for the shortened version of the judgment from 350 pages to merely 286 pages."

The firm has demanded that the court urgently provide what it describes as the complete judgment comprising 350 pages that was read, delivered and signed in open Court on June 8.

The lawyers also said they are yet to receive typed proceedings and audiovisual recordings of the judgment delivery, materials they say are necessary for review and the intended appeal process.

They have asked the court to furnish the documents and footage without delay.

The controversy over the judgment's integrity spilled onto social media even before the letter was made public, with lawyers taking to various platforms to question both the delay in releasing the full ruling and its substance.

  One of the lawyers, Evans Ndong, was particularly vocal online, questioning why parties had not been furnished with the full judgment days after its delivery  

 "They did not even mind to give us an internally coherent judgment.The summary is out but the full judgment itself of such a weighty issue is not yet with us. We shall not be kind in the criticism against the three-judge bench. When we criticize the Judiciary, we do that for the future," Ndong posted on X

 Ndong  rejected the suggestion that criticism of the bench amounted to partisanship.

"There is an imagination that it is war to support Gachagua. Injustices should never be meted with individuals in mind. Because in the future, any of us can fall victim of the egregious entrenchment of violations through court decisions," he said.

On the Sh50 million compensation that the bench awarded Gachagua, Ndong was dismissive of its value as a constitutional remedy.

"Everyone knows that although compensation is a relief under the Constitution, in this case it was no effective remedy. They told Gachagua: take Sh 50 million but leave with your political rights permanently extinguished. How is such a remedy in sync with transformative constitutionalism ideals?" he posed.

The three-judge bench comprising Justices Ogola, Mrima and Mugambi, delivered the ruling in the consolidated petitions that challenged Gachagua's removal from office by the National Assembly and Senate in October 2024.

The court upheld the impeachment but found procedural violations sufficient to justify the monetary award.

The Judiciary had not publicly responded to the allegations about the integrity of the judgment by the time of publication.