Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua was on Tuesday, March 5, 2024, sued by two human rights advocacy groups over utterances he made directed at High Court Judge Esther Maina.
The Kenya Human Rights Commission (KHRC) and the Muslim for Human Rights (MUHURI) jointly filed a petition against the deputy president, condemning his remarks as ‘derogatory and embarrasing’ to the integrity of the Judiciary.
The petition, submitted to the High Court, argued that Gachagua’s statements, made in response to ongoing court cases, also had the potential to incite constitutional disorder.
“In one of his public addresses on Sunday, January 14, 2024, Hon Geoffrey Rigathi Gachagua publicly denounced High Court Judge Lady Justice Esther Maina, labeling her as ‘corrupt’,” the petitioners stated.
The petitioners have demanded that Gachagua issue a retraction and apology for his statements in two nationally circulated newspapers within 14 days of the court’s ruling.
On January 14, 2024, Deputy President Gachagua, addressing a gathering in Iten, Elgeyo Marakwet, pledged to initiate proceedings for Justice Esther Maina’s removal. In his remarks, Gachagua accused the judge of defaming him and branding his financial gains as proceeds of crime.
“I will personally submit a petition to Lady Chief Justice Martha Koome against Justice Esther Maina for her expulsion from the Judiciary due to misconduct and corruption,” Gachagua declared during his speech.
However, Gachagua later withdrew his intention to file the petition for Justice Maina’s removal, expressing openness to a dialogue proposed by Chief Justice Martha Koome.
The petition against the Deputy President further sought a declaration that Gachagua’s unfounded allegations of corruption constituted a threat to Justice Maina’s reputation.
Additionally, the lobby groups urged the court to acknowledge that the deputy president’s remarks and behavior tarnished the dignity of his office and posed a threat to Justice Maina’s personal standing.
“The public statements and actions of Gachagua in early January constitute a violation of the independence of the Judiciary,” the petitioners argued.
