Former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua is now pursuing damages in a petition challenging his impeachment, claiming it was conducted unlawfully. Gachagua has shifted his focus from seeking reinstatement to requesting financial compensation for the income he would have earned had he completed his five-year term.
This legal adjustment was presented before the court by his attorney, Paul Muite, during a recent session.
Gachagua Shifts Legal Strategy
In a surprising move, Gachagua’s legal team filed an application to amend his initial petition. Muite informed the court that his client no longer seeks reinstatement to his former position. Instead, he is demanding monetary compensation for the remainder of his term.
“The petitioner intends to challenge the validity of his impeachment. He will now focus on seeking compensation equivalent to his full five-year earnings,” said Muite.
Muite also clarified that no interlocutory applications would be filed in this matter and requested the court to schedule the earliest possible hearing date.
A Matter of Personal Interest
Muite emphasized that the case is not of public interest but a personal grievance directly affecting Gachagua due to his impeachment. He further stated that the revised approach is aimed at addressing his client’s individual losses rather than reinstating him to office.
“This is a private matter concerning the petitioner’s rights and the legality of the impeachment process. It is not about public office but about ensuring justice for my client,” he added.
Court Responds to Request
The respondents in the case did not oppose Gachagua’s application to revise his petition. This lack of objection paves the way for the court to proceed with hearing the matter based on the amended prayers.
The case, which has drawn significant public interest, is expected to set a precedent on how impeachments are handled and the rights of individuals affected by such processes.
Public Reaction
The case has sparked debate on the fairness of impeachment proceedings and whether public officials deserve compensation if removed from office before their term ends.
As the court prepares to hear the revised petition, all eyes remain on the judiciary’s handling of this contentious matter, with implications for both political and legal landscapes.
