Senate pokes holes in Dr Gikonyo's health findings on Gachagua

The Senate has poked holes in Karen Hospital CEO and cardiologist Dr Daniel Gikonyo health documents, indicating that former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua was ailing during impeachment proceedings.

 The upper house’s clerk, Jeremiah Nyegenye in his reply to Gikonyo’s affidavit, claimed that while the senior doctor indicated that Gachagua was to spend three days under his care, a computer-generated document showed that he spent 31 days in hospital.

 At the same time, Nyegenye also alleged that Gikonyo was not the author of the document, as it allegedly showed a Dr Sarita.

 “ I advised by the 3rd and 4th respondents' (Senate and Senate speaker Amason Kingi) advocates that the purported medical report annexed to the affidavit sworn on the 28th day of April 2026 is an afterthought and incapable of retrospectively curing the absence of evidence before the trial chamber at the material time,” claimed Nyegenye.

 In this case, Rigathi argues that although the Senate had been notified by his lawyers that he had been taken ill, they went ahead and impeached him. His successor, in a fresh court reply, claims that the report indicating that he needed urgent admission should have been presented before the Senate, then to the court in an immediate instance.

 Gikonyo’s affidavit threw the issue into a new spin, with President William Ruto now being directly mentioned.

 Rigathi, who once upon a time was a political darling to Ruto, now turned into a foe, accuses the President of having a hand in his predicaments, which he denies.

 However, the document by Karen Hospital CEO and cardiologist Dr Daniel Gikonyo indicates that the President has a personal follow-up on what transpired at the Senate after Gachagua was rushed to the hospital in the afternoon when he was required to take the witness stand.

  Dr Gikonyo, in the document, said that on October 17, 2024, Dr Ruto called him to inquire about Rigathi’s health status.

 He further said that informed the Head of State that his then deputy had been taken ill and admitted.

 “ I personally supervised and monitored the first petitioner (Gachagua) during his admission from October 17, 2024, to October 20, 2024. On October 17, 2024, while the first petitioner was under my care, I received a telephone call from the President of the Republic of Kenya, H.E. William Ruto, who inquired as to the first petitioner’s condition, and I confirmed that the first petitioner had indeed been admitted at Karen Hospital, Nairobi and was receiving treatment,” said Dr Gikonyo.

 The cardiologist in his document before the High Court Judges Eric Ogola, Freda Mugambi and Anthony Mrima stated that the 59-year-old father of two was rushed to the hospital complaining of severe chest pains.

 He also said that he attended to him at around 3 pm, adding that he had been taking care of Rigathi since 2006.

 He was of the view that there was a risk of losing the then Kenya’s second-in-command if there was no immediate intervention.

 On the other hand, the Senate and the National Assembly argued that Gachagua had an opportunity to defend himself, which he burned.

 The two, in their response, said that when the upper house of parliament resumed at 2.30 pm, Gachagua’s lead counsel informed lawmakers that he was not certain of his client’s whereabouts.

 The reply filed by G&A Advocates further reads that the lawyer, Paul Muite, was allegedly allowed to speak to him.

 “ Subsequently, the first petitioner’s counsel returned to the Senate Chamber and informed the House that the first petitioner had been taken ill. The House was thus adjourned until 5.00 p.m. to enable the first petitioner’s legal team to obtain further particulars and for the House to consider the way forward in the circumstances,”  the reply reads in part.

 Senate and the National Assembly further claimed that at 5 pm, the senior lawyer came back and sought an adjournment, arguing that Gachagua had been taken ill.

 After, they stated, Senators voted against the motion, and the speaker, Amason Kingi, directed that the hearing continue.

 The two houses alleged that following the ruling by the speaker, Gachagua’s lawyers allegedly walked out.

 “ At this point, the first petitioner had all of his responses filed before the National Assembly and the material filed before the Senate on record. He had also fully participated in the hearing of the National Assembly’s case and challenged the evidence through cross-examination. The only remaining step was for the first petitioner to take the stand and be similarly cross-examined for the National Assembly to test and challenge his evidence,” they replied.

 Gachagua, they said, was impeached by the Senate on five grounds.

 Senators and MPs claimed that Gachagua had metaphorically raised inflammatory statements that the government was a dairy cow, with those who tended it deserving to milk it first. According to them, this was a crude analogy of reducing citizenship to transactional shareholding.

 At the same they claimed that his reference to ‘children of the home and those of neighbours' allegedly created a dangerous hierarchy of citizenship.

 Further, they told the court that he repeatedly contradicted Ruto, which allegedly amounted to insubordination.

 MPs and Senators also claimed that Gachagua interfered with Nairobi County’s City Market planning and had disparaging remarks against governors.

 The other issue was that he allegedly publicly attacked Justice Esther Maina for ordering the forfeiture of Sh 200 million as proceeds of corruption.

 According to them, an impeachment is a constitutional process but with a political character.

 The two houses asserted that there is no legitimate expectation that once a deputy president is elected, his fate is tied to that of the President.

 They argued that a DP can be removed at any time.

 The two houses of Parliament said that, following public participation, without his response to the public, and hearing, there was an inevitable conclusion of impeachment.

 They urged the court to dismiss the cases, adding that even for pension and retirement benefits, Gachagua could only get them if he retired after completion of the term.

 Gachagua wants the court to find that the impeachment was unconstitutional, hence null and void. He is seeking full benefits, alongside compensation.