The High Court has upheld the impeachment of former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua, ruling that the process that led to his removal from office was constitutionally valid and final, even as it found that his right to a fair hearing was violated during Senate proceedings.
In a detailed judgment delivered by a three-judge bench comprising Justices Eric Ogola, Anthony Mrima and Freidah Mugambi, the court dismissed petitions challenging the impeachment, affirming that both the National Assembly and the Senate acted within their constitutional mandates.
However, the ruling has triggered a wave of criticism from political leaders and legal experts, who argue that the court acknowledged violations of rights but still allowed the outcome to stand.
“Process constitutional, outcome final” — court
The bench held that the impeachment of a Deputy President is a unique constitutional process with finality once concluded, limiting the extent to which courts can intervene after completion.
“The court retains jurisdiction to interpret the Constitution and determine whether constitutional limits were observed, but it cannot reverse a completed impeachment where the Constitution provides a self-executing process,” the judges stated.
The court further distinguished the removal of a Deputy President from the impeachment of county governors, noting that the former carries constitutional finality, while the latter is governed by statute and therefore more open to judicial remedies.
The judges warned that overturning such a process after succession would create a constitutional dilemma.
“To reinstate an impeached Deputy President after a successor has been lawfully appointed would result in the untenable scenario of two Deputy Presidents holding office simultaneously,” the court observed.
Fair hearing violated during Senate proceedings
Despite upholding the impeachment, the court found that Gachagua’s right to a fair hearing was breached during the Senate process, particularly in relation to his request for adjournment on medical grounds and limited time to fully participate in his defence.
The bench ruled that while public participation requirements were largely met under the “reasonableness standard,” certain procedural shortcomings affected the fairness of the proceedings.
However, the judges maintained that these violations did not invalidate the final outcome.
Kindiki appointment upheld
The court also upheld the legality of the appointment of Prof. Kithure Kindiki as Deputy President, ruling that the process under Article 149(1) of the Constitution was properly followed.
The judges found that public participation was not required in the appointment process and dismissed claims of conflict of interest, noting that Kindiki had resigned as Interior Cabinet Secretary before assuming office.
“Damages cannot replace fair hearing” — Karua
The ruling has drawn sharp criticism from People’s Liberation Party leader Martha Karua, who described the judgment as “flawed and troubling.”
In a statement posted on X, Karua said the court’s decision to uphold the impeachment despite finding a violation of the right to a fair hearing undermined constitutional protections.
“Once the court established that the right to a fair hearing had been violated, it was constitutionally obligated to nullify the impeachment proceedings,” Karua said.
She added: “Damages cannot be a substitute to the right to fair hearing, and this pronouncement is a blot on our jurisprudence.”
Her remarks have added to the growing legal and political debate over what critics see as a contradiction in the ruling.
The judgment is expected to remain central in discussions on impeachment thresholds, fair hearing rights, and the limits of judicial intervention in completed constitutional processes.
