What You Need to Know
Former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua’s legal team argues that his references to ‘Mt Kenya’ were geographical, not ethnic, during his impeachment hearing. The defense claims that accusations of promoting negative ethnicity are misinterpretations of his statements, emphasizing the mountain’s significance in Kenya’s geography and constitution.
Africa-Press – Kenya. The legal team representing former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua has strongly pushed back against accusations that he promoted negative ethnicity, telling the court that references to “Mt Kenya” weregeographical, not tribal.
Appearing before the High Court at Milimani Law Courts, defence lawyer Tom Macharia argued that his client’s statements had been deliberately misinterpreted to link them to ethnic incitement.
“The first petitioner is accused of stirring hatred, potentially inciting people because he used the word Mt Kenya,” Macharia told the bench. “From the little geography I learnt, Mt Kenya is a rock in the middle of Kenya – it is not a tribe. It is where we got the name for our republic.”
He insisted that whenever Gachagua mentioned Mt Kenya, he was referring strictly to the mountain and its geographical significance, not to any ethnic grouping.
“He did not say tribe. He said Mt Kenya—and Mt Kenya is a rock,” Macharia emphasised.
The lawyer further argued that even counties surrounding the mountain are home to diverse communities drawn from across the country, undermining claims that the term inherently denotes a single ethnic bloc.
“Even if you were to count the counties that surround it, they constitute people from every corner of Kenya. They do not have one tribe,” he said.
Macharia also mounted a constitutional defence, asserting that discussions around ethnicity are not only permissible but recognised within Kenya’s legal framework.
“Even if he was talking about ethnicity, the Constitution itself addresses it extensively,” he submitted. “Articles 21, 27, 63, 90, 91, 100, 130, 232, 241, 246, 250, among others, all speak to ethnicity as a principle worth defending, worth being held to account for, and worth advocating for.”
“In fact, I found the word ‘ethnicity’ appears more times than the word ‘economy’ in the Constitution,” he added. “So how can you be accused over an issue the Constitution itself spends so much time addressing?”
A three-judge bench comprising Justices Erick Ogolla, Anthony Mrima, and Freda Mugambi is hearing the matter.
Gachagua is challenging his impeachment from office in October 2024, which made him the first Deputy President in Kenya’s history to be removed through that process.
He has since claimed that his ouster was politically motivated, alleging that lawmakers in both the National Assembly and the Senate were influenced through bribery to support his removal.
However, the impeachment proceedings were anchored on accusations that he fostered “ethnic balkanisation” and promoted a controversial “shareholder” model of governance. Critics argued that his stance-that regions which supported the ruling coalition should receive priority in development and government appointments-risked deepening ethnic divisions.
The issue of ethnicity in Kenyan politics has been a longstanding concern, often influencing electoral outcomes and governance. The country’s diverse communities have historically faced challenges related to ethnic tensions, particularly during election periods. Gachagua’s case highlights the complexities surrounding ethnic identity and political discourse in Kenya, where the Constitution recognizes ethnicity as a significant aspect of national identity and governance. This legal battle reflects broader societal debates about the role of ethnicity in politics and the potential for divisive rhetoric to impact national unity.
