Rigathi Gachagua Rejects High Court’s Ksh50 Million Reward, Vows To Fight On For Constitutional Supremacy

Former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua has publicly rejected the Ksh50 million constitutional damages awarded to him by the High Court, calling the financial settlement a mockery of justice and an insult to his fundamental freedoms.

“We Are Not Interested”

The three-judge bench consisting of Justices Eric Ogola, Anthony Mrima, and Freda Mugambi had ruled that while the Senate’s final vote to remove Gachagua met the statutory thresholds, his right to a fair hearing was explicitly violated due to procedural irregularities during the trial. To vindicate his dignity and deter future violations by Parliament, the bench ordered the Senate to pay Gachagua Ksh50 million.

However, the former Deputy President dismissed the state-backed payout, stating that a constitutional transgression cannot be bought off with a taxpayer-funded check.

“The Ksh50 million awarded to me is an insult to my fundamental rights and freedom and a mockery of the constitution,” Gachagua declared. “We are not interested. Money was never the issue here; justice and supremacy were.”

Standing on Principle Over Financial Compromise

Gachagua emphasized that accepting a monetary award while his substantive removal from office remains upheld would compromise the core motivation of his petitions. He positioned his defiance as a stand for future generations of leaders who might face targeted legislative ousters.

“I am one Kenyan leader who cannot be swayed by promises of money to allow violation of the constitution,” the former DP stated firmly. “I stand as a matter of principle to protect the constitutional rights and defend the Constitution.”

Shifting Focus to the Higher Courts

Legal analysts note that by rejecting the damages, Gachagua’s legal team is signaling an immediate intent to challenge the High Court’s split logic at the Court of Appeal.

His defense team has consistently argued that if a court formally establishes that a petitioner’s right to a fair hearing was fundamentally breached during an administrative or legislative trial, the only legally sound remedy under administrative law is to nullify the entire proceeding (void ab initio) rather than treating a constitutional violation as a compensable injury.

While the High Court hoped its hefty financial award would strike a balance between punishing legislative overreach and maintaining executive stability, Gachagua’s refusal to accept the funds has re-ignited intense debate regarding due process, judicial remedies, and the rule of law across Kenya’s political landscape.