Former Law Society of Kenya (LSK) President Eric Theuri has launched a scathing attack on the High Court judgement that upheld the impeachment of former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua, describing it as a politically driven decision that raises serious constitutional questions.
In a statement posted on his official X account on Tuesday, June 9, 2026, Theuri argued that the ruling is legally inconsistent because it simultaneously acknowledges a violation of constitutional rights while preserving the outcome of the impeachment process.
“The Gachagua judgement is a political decision at best as it is legally absurd,” Theuri stated.
The senior lawyer contended that the Constitution is clear on the consequences of rights violations, maintaining that any process found to have infringed constitutional protections should be rendered void.
According to Theuri, the court’s decision to award damages for violation of Gachagua’s rights while still allowing the impeachment to stand creates a contradiction that could complicate future constitutional interpretation.
“The Constitution expressly provides that any decision in violation of rights is void,” he argued.
Theuri questioned how a process deemed unconstitutional in part could still produce legal consequences, particularly regarding eligibility to hold public office in the future.
“The effect of impeachment is that the person cannot hold public office. So how does a decision in violation of rights for which the Court has awarded damages operate as a bar to running for office?” he posed.
The former LSK president argued that the judgement appeared to separate the violation of rights from the consequences of the impeachment, a distinction he believes lacks a firm constitutional basis.
He further warned that such reasoning could create uncertainty in constitutional law and weaken public confidence in judicial decisions involving major political disputes.
Theuri also accused the court of failing to demonstrate sufficient independence in its interpretation of the law, claiming the ruling reflected what he termed a “captured court.”
His remarks add to a growing debate among legal scholars, politicians, and constitutional experts over the implications of the judgement delivered by Justices Erick Ogolla, Anthony Mrima, and Freda Mugambi.
The High Court upheld Gachagua’s impeachment on June 8, 2026, finding that Parliament had met the constitutional threshold required to remove him from office. However, the judges also ruled that his right to a fair hearing had been violated after the Senate declined requests to adjourn proceedings on medical grounds.
As a result, the court awarded Gachagua KSh50 million in constitutional damages while maintaining the validity of the impeachment and affirming the appointment of Deputy President Kithure Kindiki.
The decision has sparked competing interpretations within legal circles. While some experts view the judgement as an attempt to balance constitutional accountability with protection of individual rights, critics argue that it leaves unresolved questions about the legal consequences of a process found to have violated fundamental rights.
With appeals widely expected, attention is now shifting to the Court of Appeal, which is likely to provide further clarity on the relationship between due process violations, impeachment proceedings, and eligibility for public office.
