The ghost of Rigathi Gachagua’s impeachment returns to haunt the corridors of justice today. The Supreme Court is set to deliver a pivotal ruling that could either validate the former Deputy President’s removal or throw the entire legal process into constitutional chaos.

At the center of this legal storm is a technical but explosive question: Did Deputy Chief Justice Philomena Mwilu have the power to empanel the three-judge bench that sealed Gachagua’s fate?The Court of Appeal has already said "no," ruling that only the Chief Justice has that prerogative. Now, the apex court must decide whether to uphold that finding or overturn it.

The Mwilu Conundrum

This is not just about Gachagua; it is about the hierarchy of the judiciary. The National Assembly, desperate to protect the legitimacy of the impeachment, is arguing that Mwilu acted within her rights as the DCJ. Gachagua’s legal team, sensing blood, argues that the bench was an "illegal entity" from birth, meaning every decision it made—including lifting the orders that saved him—is null and void.

"If the foundation is rotten, the house must fall," Gachagua’s lawyer argued in filings. The ruling today is technically procedural—dealing with a cross-appeal dismissal application—but its language will signal the court’s direction on the main issue.

• The Stakes: If the Supreme Court agrees that the bench was illegal, Gachagua could theoretically argue for reinstatement or damages, creating a constitutional crisis.
• The Estoppel Argument: Gachagua accuses Parliament of hypocrisy, noting they previously opposed Mwilu’s powers when it suited them, but are now defending her actions to save their impeachment vote.

A Nation Waits

While the political class has moved on to the next scandal, the legal fraternity is holding its breath. This ruling will define the powers of the Deputy Chief Justice for generations.

For Rigathi Gachagua, sitting in political exile, today is not about returning to office—it is about vindication. He wants to prove that he was removed not by the law, but by a "kangaroo court" assembled in the dark.