At least four petitions have been filed seeking to stop President William Ruto and the National Assembly from appointing Professor Kithure Kindiki as the new Deputy President.

The petitions, filed by various individuals and organizations, challenge the impeachment process of Rigathi Gachagua and the subsequent nomination of Kindiki.

They argue that the entire process was unconstitutional, marred with procedural inconsistencies, and driven by political motives.

Emmanuel Elijah Otieno, an advocate of the High Court of Kenya, argues that the National Assembly's impeachment process was flawed. He contends that the public participation exercise was inadequate, falling short of both the quantitative and qualitative thresholds required for impeaching a Deputy President elected by over seven million Kenyans. 

Otieno highlights that Gachagua was not given a fair hearing, as the National Assembly debated the motion before he had the opportunity to respond to the allegations. He further asserts that Gachagua's responses were not captured in the public view template form, further prejudicing him.

Sheria Mtaani and Shadrack Wambui, represented by advocate Danstan Omari, also filed a petition challenging the impeachment process. They argue that the Speaker of the Senate rushed the proceedings and unreasonably declined to adjourn the sitting to allow Gachagua time to recuperate after falling ill. The petitioners maintain that this denial of adjournment led to ex-parte proceedings, violating Gachagua's right to appear before the Senate and be represented by counsel.

They further challenge Kindiki's nomination, arguing that it violates Article 137 of the Constitution as he currently holds the position of Cabinet Secretary for Interior Security. The petitioners also highlight the absence of a fully constituted Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC), which they contend makes it impossible to approve Kindiki's nomination in accordance with Articles 82 and 88 of the Constitution.

Another petition was filed by Father Eddie Waiguru and Peter Kimani Koira, who claim that Gachagua's impeachment was driven by political betrayal, deceit, vendetta, and malice orchestrated by President Ruto and other respondents. They contend that the special sitting of the National Assembly, scheduled for October 18th, 2024, is intended to approve Kindiki's nomination as a replacement for Gachagua, violating several articles of the Constitution.

The petitioners highlight the 14-day and 60-day periods stipulated in Article 149(1) of the Constitution. They argue that the 14-day period is intended to allow the President to obtain certification from the IEBC regarding the nominee's qualifications to serve as Deputy President, while the 60-day period is for the National Assembly to conduct public participation across all 290 constituencies.

They argue that President Ruto cannot lawfully appoint a replacement for Gachagua in the absence of a duly constituted IEBC. Furthermore, citing Articles 1, 38, and 91 of the Constitution, Section 10 of the Political Parties Act, 2011, and the Kenya Kwanza Coalition Agreement, the petitioners argue that President Ruto is prohibited from nominating anyone outside the Mt. Kenya region for the Deputy President position. They claim that appointing a replacement from outside the region would amount to political exclusion of over 16 million Kenyans and a violation of the presidential election results.

A fourth petition, filed by Rigathi Gachagua himself through his lawyer, Paul Muite, seeks to challenge his removal from office. Gachagua argues that the charges against him are baseless and that the evidence presented before Parliament was insufficient. He insists that the Senate failed to act as an impartial arbitrator in assessing the charges and that the impeachment process was a violation of his constitutional rights.

He further seeks an order barring the National Assembly from vetting and approving any nomination by the President to fill the Deputy President vacancy until his case is determined.

All four petitions seek conservatory orders from the High Court to halt the process of replacing Gachagua. They call for a stay of the Senate's decision to impeach Gachagua and for the President to be restrained from nominating a replacement. They also seek injunctions to prevent the National Assembly from dealing with any matter related to Gachagua's impeachment or the nomination of a successor. The petitioners argue that these conservatory orders are necessary to prevent further violation of the Constitution and to uphold the rule of law.