When the Senate impeached Rigathi Gachagua, one of the most compelling charges was his violation of Article 160(1) of the Constitution, which safeguards the independence of the Judiciary. This Article is clear: judges are not subject to the control or direction of any person or authority in the exercise of their functions. By undermining this principle, Gachagua crossed a red line that no state officer should.
The Special Motion noted that Gachagua publicly attacked a High Court judge and even threatened to file a petition for their removal in a case where he was personally involved. Such conduct went beyond political bravado—it was an outright assault on judicial independence. A Deputy President wielding threats against judges signals that political power can override the rule of law, a dangerous precedent for any democracy.
Article 160 exists to ensure that judges can decide cases fairly, without intimidation. By violating it, Gachagua not only disrespected the Judiciary but also attempted to tilt justice in his favor. For citizens watching, this behavior weakened confidence in the courts, suggesting that rulings could be influenced by political pressure rather than law.
Equally troubling was the symbolism of his actions. The Deputy President is expected to defend constitutionalism, yet here was the country’s second-in-command openly undermining one of its cornerstones. It reflected poorly on the dignity of his office and contradicted his oath to uphold the Constitution.
Looking back, impeachment was necessary. Kenya’s democracy rests on separation of powers, and allowing such behavior to go unchecked would have crippled judicial independence. By removing Gachagua, the Senate reaffirmed that no leader, however powerful, is above the Constitution—and that the rule of law remains supreme.
