A three-judge High Court bench has dismissed an application seeking their recusal from a high-stakes case questioning the legality of Deputy President Kithure Kindiki's appointment. The decision ensures that Justices Eric Ogolla, Antony Mrima, and Fredah Mugambi will continue to preside over the politically sensitive petition, which stems from the dramatic impeachment of former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua.

This legal showdown matters to every Kenyan because it tests the strength of our constitutional guardrails. The dispute directly impacts the stability of the Executive and the rule of law, raising fundamental questions about how power is transferred and validated at the highest levels of government—issues that ultimately affect national governance and investor confidence.

The recusal application was filed by activist Enock Aura, who argued the judges showed bias by separating his petition from other consolidated cases challenging Gachagua's ouster. Through his lawyer Harrison Kinyanjui, Aura contended that this procedural decision demonstrated favouritism towards Prof. Kindiki's appointment.

Court Rejects Bias Claims

In their ruling delivered on Wednesday, December 3, 2025, the judges firmly rejected these allegations. They noted that court records showed Mr. Aura himself had initially insisted on his petition being heard as a standalone matter due to its unique arguments. "The applicant has not proved, to the required standard, that this bench harbours any bias or perceived prejudice," the judges held, stating that recusal cannot be granted on unfounded fears.

The core of Mr. Aura's 242-page petition alleges that the entire process of replacing Gachagua was constitutionally flawed. Key arguments include:

• Flawed Impeachment: The petition contends that the September 2024 impeachment of then-DP Gachagua was procedurally defective.
• Lack of Vetting: It alleges the National Assembly approved Prof. Kindiki without mandatory vetting or public participation, violating constitutional principles of transparency.
• Invalid Appointment: Aura claims Prof. Kindiki never formally resigned from his position as Cabinet Secretary for Interior before his nomination, rendering the appointment invalid under the Constitution.

Adding another layer of complexity is a separate Court of Appeal ruling from May 2025, which nullified the initial empanelment of this very bench in related impeachment cases. The appellate court found that the Deputy Chief Justice lacked the constitutional authority to appoint the bench, a power reserved exclusively for the Chief Justice. This precedent looms over the current proceedings.

A Tale of Two Deputies

While the legal battle rages, both the current and former deputy presidents have maintained a calm public facade. Prof. Kindiki has repeatedly stated that his relationship with his predecessor remains amicable. "We're good people, good friends," Kindiki noted in a media roundtable, denying any involvement in Gachagua's ouster. He has defended the impeachment as a process that involved all three arms of government.

With the recusal matter now settled, the High Court is set to proceed with the substantive hearing of the petition. The case's outcome could have profound implications, potentially nullifying a key appointment within the executive. As the judiciary prepares to hear the main arguments, the nation watches, waiting for a verdict that will not only decide the fate of the Deputy Presidency but also reaffirm the country's commitment to its constitutional foundations.