Law Society of Kenya (LSK) President Charles Kanjama has highlighted what he describes as significant ambiguities in the High Court judgment that upheld the impeachment of former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua while simultaneously finding that his constitutional right to a fair hearing was violated.
Speaking during an interview on June 8, 2026, a day after the landmark ruling, Kanjama said the court failed to clearly pronounce itself on one of the most consequential issues arising from the case: whether Gachagua remains eligible to contest future elective office.
“You see that’s a matter which us lawyers will give our interpretations,” Kanjama said.
“But the court was not clear on it. It could have been very clear by making a declaration that the outcome of the impeachment will not have any consequence. That is found in Article 99(3), which means that when somebody has been removed from office on account of abuse of office or violation of the Constitution, they are not allowed to run again, but the court did not do so.”
Kanjama argued that the court’s finding that Gachagua’s Article 50 right to a fair hearing was infringed creates uncertainty regarding the legal consequences of the impeachment under Article 99(3) of the Constitution.
According to the senior lawyer, the judgment raises fundamental questions about whether all the consequences flowing from the impeachment can remain valid if the process itself was found to have violated constitutional rights.
“So for me, my interpretation is that because the court has found that there’s been a violation of the right to fair hearing, then of necessity the fruits of the impeachment cannot all be sustained,” he explained.
Kanjama suggested that while the court preserved the finality of the political process by affirming the appointment of Deputy President Kithure Kindiki, other consequences of the impeachment—particularly any restriction on Gachagua seeking elective office in the future—may not withstand constitutional scrutiny.
“Yeah, the finality in terms of bringing in a new deputy president has been sustained, but the other fruits of impeachment, which is to stop the deputy president from running again, cannot be sustained because with that essentially then overturn the impeachment again. So that is a confusion now,” he said.
The LSK president described the ruling as “Solomonic,” arguing that the judges appeared to be balancing competing constitutional and political interests without fully resolving all the legal questions before them.
“The court was trying to adopt an approach of being Solomonic and try to preserve the baby and not give one party everything they’re asking for. But the outcome is fairly confusing, to be honest, and it requires a lot of other analysis and clarification in the days ahead,” he added.
The High Court upheld Gachagua’s impeachment on June 8, 2026, but awarded him KSh50 million in constitutional damages for violation of his fair hearing rights. The court also affirmed President William Ruto’s nomination of Prof. Kithure Kindiki as Deputy President.
The ruling has already attracted mixed reactions from political and legal circles. Democracy for Citizens Party (DCP) Deputy Leader Cleophas Malala criticized the decision, while Gachagua’s lawyer Njeri Maina described it as disappointing and confirmed plans to challenge the judgment at the Court of Appeal.
Legal analysts now expect the appellate court to provide further guidance on the constitutional implications of the ruling, particularly regarding whether Gachagua’s impeachment affects his eligibility to contest future elections.
