BLOW TO GACHAGUA AS COURT REJECTS BID TO DISQUALIFY 3 BENCH JUDGE

Former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua has suffered a fresh legal blow after the High Court dismissed his second attempt to have a three-judge bench disqualified from hearing his ongoing impeachment case.

The ruling, delivered at the Milimani Law Courts, marked a significant moment in the former DP’s efforts to challenge the legal process that could potentially bar him from holding public office in the future.

Gachagua had moved to court seeking the recusal of Justices Eric Ogola, Anthony Mrima, and Freda Mugambi, arguing that the trio could not fairly and impartially hear the petitions filed against him. However, the judges unanimously rejected his application, ruling that the former deputy president had failed to provide any concrete evidence of bias or conflict of interest.

“Judicial officers must not be removed from proceedings merely based on suspicion or dissatisfaction with previous decisions,” the court ruled. “The threshold for disqualification must be clear, demonstrable bias — not speculative claims.”

The court emphasized that the process of constituting a bench lies squarely within the administrative authority of the Chief Justice, and that Gachagua’s bid to challenge that decision amounted to an interference with judicial independence.

This is the second time Gachagua has attempted to challenge the composition of the bench handling his impeachment proceedings. In June 2025, his initial petition seeking a different panel was similarly thrown out, with the court urging him to respond to the substance of the accusations rather than focus on procedural objections.

Legal analysts say Gachagua’s efforts to disqualify the judges point to a broader strategy aimed at delaying or disrupting the impeachment process, which has gained momentum over recent months following serious allegations of abuse of office and obstruction of justice.

With the court’s latest decision, the stage is now set for the substantive hearing of multiple impeachment petitions filed by civil society groups and private citizens. Among the key accusations are claims of procurement irregularities, interference in county affairs during his time in office, and misuse of public funds.

While Gachagua maintains his innocence and insists that the cases are politically motivated, the court has reiterated that the petitions raise serious constitutional questions that warrant judicial scrutiny.

Following the court’s decision to reject the recusal bid, the case is now expected to move forward as the bench prepares to hear the petitions against Gachagua. The timeline for the next session will be determined by the court, but the proceedings remain significant as the country moves closer to the 2027 general elections.