'Ksh.50M is an insult, Ruto had offered me Ksh.2B', Gachagua says after Court upheld his impeachment

On Monday, June 8, the High Court upheld Gachagua's impeachment and ordered the Senate to pay him Ksh.50 million in constitutional damages for violating his right to a fair trial during his impeachment process.  

In a press conference on Tuesday, June 9, the former DP explained that the pursuit of justice was his motive to seek legal redress and hence no amount of money could sway him to capitulate. 

Gachagua alleged that if he were interested in money, he would have accepted President William Ruto's Ksh.2 billion to resign during his tenure as Deputy President. 

"The Ksh.50 million awarded to me is an insult to my fundamental rights and freedoms and a mockery of the Constitution. we are not interested. Money was not the issue; justice and constitutional supremacy was. I am a leader who cannot be swayed by promises of money to allow violation of the Constitution," he stated. 

"If I were interested in money, Mr Ruto had offered me Ksh.2 billion in an effort to entice me to avoid impeachment and opt for resignation. But i stood for my rights and that of over 7 million Kenyans who voted for me. I rejected this offer and faced the National Assembly."

"No amount of money can stand between me, my rights and Kenyans."

Gachagua questioned the 3-judge bench for upholding his impeachment despite ruling that his right to a fair trial was violated. 

"We strongly observe that the impeachment process was found faulty by the 3-judge bench for failure to respect my right to fair hearing. Once that determination was made, the entire process collapsed and was null and void. There was no impeachment. Theirs was a constitutional coup, an abuse of the people of independent Kenya," he stated. 

"The 3 judge bench was obligated by operation of the law on the determination of a violation of the Constitution to set aside the impeachment. The decision by the bench to purport to uphold the impeachment is in itself a violation."

He revealed that his legal team, led by Senior Counsel Paul Muite, would file an appeal at the appellate court, arguing that once the High Court established that his rights under Articles 25, 47, and 50 of the Constitution were breached, the entire ouster process should have been declared null and void. 

"We shall proceed to file an appeal at the Court of Appeal on the decision and hope that justice shall prevail."