Former United Democratic Alliance (UDA) Secretary-General Cleophas Malalah has sharply criticized a recent High Court ruling that upheld the impeachment of former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua despite finding that his constitutional right to a fair hearing had been violated.
In a statement issued on Monday, Malalah, who serves as a deputy party leader in Gachagua's political camp, said the decision by the three-judge bench raises serious constitutional questions about the protection of fundamental rights and the integrity of due process in Kenya.
The judges found that Gachagua's right to a fair hearing, as guaranteed under Article 50 of the Constitution, had been infringed during the impeachment process. However, instead of nullifying the impeachment, the court allowed the outcome to stand and awarded damages as a remedy.
Malalah argued that the ruling presents a contradiction that could have far-reaching implications for constitutional governance.
"If the process was flawed and unconstitutional, how can its outcome be allowed to stand?" he posed.
According to Malalah, the right to a fair hearing is one of the cornerstones of Kenya's constitutional order and should not be treated as a procedural technicality that can be remedied through compensation after the fact.
He maintained that impeachment proceedings are among the most consequential actions that can be taken against a public official because they affect reputation, career prospects and public trust. For that reason, he said, such proceedings must meet the highest standards of fairness and constitutional compliance.
The former Kakamega Senator questioned whether monetary compensation can adequately address the violation of a fundamental constitutional right.
He also raised concerns about what he termed the growing acceptance of "substantial compliance" in situations where the Constitution demands strict adherence to legal procedures.
"Can a violation of a fundamental right be remedied solely through monetary compensation? Can substantial compliance be sufficient where the Constitution demands strict adherence?" Malalah asked.
The politician warned that the implications of the ruling extend beyond Gachagua's case and could affect how constitutional rights are interpreted and enforced in future disputes.
He argued that the standards applied in the former deputy president's impeachment could one day be used against ordinary citizens who lack the political influence and resources to pursue lengthy legal battles.
"Today, the subject may be Rigathi Gachagua. Tomorrow, the same standard may be applied to any Kenyan citizen," he said.
Malalah further emphasized the role of the judiciary as the guardian of the Constitution, saying court decisions should strengthen public confidence in the protection of rights rather than create uncertainty about the consequences of constitutional violations.
The ruling, he said, has sparked an important debate about whether constitutional protections are absolute or subject to practical and political considerations.
"The Constitution protects both the process and the outcome. We cannot defend one while disregarding the other," he stated.
Gachagua's impeachment remains one of the most politically significant developments in Kenya's recent history, continuing to generate legal and political debate months after he was removed from office. The latest court ruling is expected to fuel further discussion over the balance between procedural fairness, constitutional supremacy and the finality of political processes.
Malalah insisted that the matter is far from settled, expressing confidence that further legal and public scrutiny of the decision will continue.
"This ruling calls for sober reflection and national dialogue. Constitutional rights must mean exactly what they say, for every Kenyan, under every circumstance," he said.
