When history reflects on Rigathi Gachagua’s impeachment, one constitutional violation stands out—his failure to respect Articles 147(1) and 152(1) of the Kenyan Constitution. These provisions are clear: the Deputy President’s role is to assist the President in executing the functions of government, while the Cabinet must operate as a collective body bound by unity of purpose.
Gachagua, however, chose a different path. Instead of complementing President William Ruto’s leadership, he repeatedly contradicted him in public. Whether on the sensitive issue of revenue sharing, government appointments, or responses to protests, Gachagua issued unilateral statements that undermined official government policy. In doing so, he blurred the lines of authority and created the image of a divided executive.
Article 147(1) demands that the Deputy President serve as the principal assistant to the President. Yet Gachagua became more of a rival than a partner. His pronouncements, often tribal in tone, weakened the President’s symbolic role under Article 131 as a unifying figure for the nation. By contradicting government positions, he directly eroded the coherence of national governance.
Similarly, Article 152(1) defines the Cabinet as a collective body whose decisions are binding once adopted. Gachagua’s habit of disowning Cabinet resolutions in public forums was a gross breach of this principle. It suggested disloyalty not just to the President but to the institution of Cabinet itself, thereby weakening executive authority.
Impeachment became inevitable because his conduct paralyzed the effective discharge of government functions. A Deputy President who contradicts his own government ceases to be an assistant and becomes a saboteur.
Looking back, his removal was necessary. It reaffirmed that the unity of the Presidency and Cabinet is non-negotiable. Kenya cannot afford leaders who undermine collective responsibility for personal or political gain.
