Nairobi, Kenya | By Michael Wandati | In the latest political drama in Kenya, the news that Members of Parliament (MPs) have initiated the impeachment process against embattled Deputy President, Rigathi Gachagua, has sent ripples across the country.
With 11 outlined reasons for this motion, there is an underlying question: is impeaching the Deputy President the best course of action? More significantly, if Gachagua is to be held accountable, why is his boss, President William Ruto, seemingly immune to some of these charges?
Gachagua stands accused of corruption, money-laundering, gross misconduct, insubordination and bullying public officers and six other acts of wrongdoing.
During the introduction of the impeachment motion in Parliament on Tuesday, MP Mwengi Mutuse stated that 291 out of 349 members had endorsed the document calling for Gachagua’s removal.
To proceed with the impeachment of Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua, the signatures of at least two-thirds of all MPs, or 233 members, are necessary.
This impeachment raises concerns about both the political dynamics and the practical implications for the country.
For the sake of national stability and coherence, it is worth examining why this move might not be in Kenya’s best interests.
The role of the Deputy President: Constitutional and practical implications
The Deputy President is not a standalone figure in Kenya’s political structure. The Constitution envisions a collaborative leadership model between the President and the Deputy President.
Gachagua’s actions and policies are, in theory, closely aligned with those of President Ruto, as both leaders were elected on a joint ticket – the United Democratic Alliance (UDA). This dynamic begs the question: why target one and not the other?
The political partnership between the President and his deputy is designed to be complementary. If Gachagua has failed in his duties, does that not reflect on the entire administration, including the President?
Removing the Deputy President while leaving the head of state in power creates a dichotomy in leadership. It could foster an atmosphere of confusion, leaving the public wondering whether the impeachment is motivated by valid concerns or political opportunism.
This might fracture the administration, creating a leadership vacuum that weakens governance.
The case against Gachagua: Are the reasons valid?
The MPs leading the charge against Gachagua have outlined 11 reasons, presumably centered on allegations of misconduct, incompetence, or abuse of office.
While these charges should be taken seriously, the process of impeachment should not be driven by political vendettas or factional infighting.
The outlined reasons should be examined critically, and if there is substantive evidence, legal mechanisms beyond impeachment, such as court processes, should be explored.
An impeachment process, by its very nature, is a politically charged event. The risk of it being misused to settle scores is ever-present. If the impeachment of Gachagua is seen as more of a power play than an accountability measure, it could deepen divisions in the country and erode public trust in political institutions.
Why target the Deputy and not the President?
One of the most glaring contradictions in this process is the decision to go after the Deputy President while his superior remains unchallenged.
Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua and his boss President William Ruto campaigned as a unified ticket, and their policies and actions since assuming office have been a product of their joint leadership. If Gachagua is being accused of governance failures or policy missteps, it is difficult to exonerate the President from similar scrutiny.
Impeaching Gachagua without addressing Ruto’s role or responsibility creates a narrative that the Deputy President is being scapegoated. It suggests that the MPs pushing for impeachment are either unwilling or unable to confront the President himself, opting instead to go after a perceived weaker target.
This selective accountability could undermine the legitimacy of the entire process.
The consequences of an impeachment
If the impeachment were successful, Kenya would be left with a weakened executive.
The Constitution provides mechanisms for replacing the Deputy President, but doing so could destabilize the administration and lead to a loss of public confidence.
The timing is also critical; Kenya is still navigating complex economic and social challenges, and political instability could exacerbate these problems.
Moreover, an impeachment would likely polarize the nation further, pitting supporters of Gachagua against those who favor his removal. This could deepen political divisions, making it harder for the country to move forward on critical national issues such as economic recovery, healthcare, and infrastructure development.
A path forward
The impeachment of Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua is a serious political undertaking with far-reaching implications.
While MPs have the right to hold leaders accountable, they must ensure that their actions are in the best interest of the country.
Impeaching Gachagua without addressing the broader role of the administration risks creating a leadership vacuum, destabilizing the government, and eroding public trust.
Also Read: Gachagua denies rift with Raila Odinga amid AUC chairmanship bid
Instead of pursuing a divisive impeachment process, MPs and the broader political class should focus on ensuring that both the President and the Deputy President deliver on their promises to the people.
Accountability is essential, but it must be applied evenly and fairly.
Targeting the Deputy President without scrutinizing the entire administration sets a dangerous precedent, one that could weaken the country’s democratic institutions and hinder its progress.
In the end, political stability, not power plays, should guide the decision-making process in Kenya’s corridors of power.
