A fresh legal controversy has emerged over the judgment that upheld the impeachment of former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua, after his lawyers claimed that the version supplied to parties differs significantly from the one delivered in court.
In a letter addressed to the court registry, Gachagua’s legal team has raised concerns over what they describe as an unexplained discrepancy involving 64 pages allegedly missing from the final judgment issued to litigants.
The dispute relates to the consolidated constitutional petitions heard by a three-judge bench comprising Justices Eric Ogola, Anthony Mrima and Freda Mugambi.
The judgment, delivered on June 8, 2026, took nearly ten hours to read in open court and addressed challenges arising from Gachagua’s impeachment.
According to the former DP’s lawyers, Justice Ogola informed advocates present during the proceedings that the court was delivering a 350-page judgment.
However, when parties later obtained copies of the ruling, the document supplied consisted of only 286 pages.
The lawyers contend that the difference raises serious questions about whether the written judgment reflects the complete decision delivered by the court.
“During the delivery of the judgment, the court indicated that it was rendering a 350-page decision,” the lawyers state in their correspondence. ” The version subsequently availed to parties contains only 286 pages.”
They argue that the unexplained variance casts doubt on the completeness of the official court record and warrants immediate clarification from the Judiciary.
“The discrepancy raises concerns regarding the completeness and authenticity of the official judgment record,” the lawyers further state, warning that any uncertainty surrounding a decision of such public importance could erode confidence in the administration of justice.
The case is politically significant as it involved multiple petitioners and state respondents, including the National Assembly and the Speaker of the National Assembly.
The concerns come amid broader criticism from People’s Liberation Party leader Martha Karua, who recently questioned what she termed inconsistencies in judicial decisions involving politically sensitive disputes.
Karua cited her experience in the 2017 Nyeri gubernatorial election petition, arguing that courts had acknowledged procedural shortcomings and missing records but nonetheless dismissed her case.
Gachagua’s legal team is now demanding immediate access to what it maintains is the full 350-page judgment read in court and has called on the registry to explain whether the apparent omission resulted from a clerical, procedural or substantive error.
