Nominated Member of Parliament Sabina Chege has defended Parliament’s decision to impeach former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua, maintaining that a recent High Court ruling awarding him Ksh50 million in constitutional damages did not overturn his removal from office.
Chege insisted that the court only addressed procedural violations during the Senate proceedings and upheld the impeachment itself.
“The court did not fault Parliament for impeaching Gachagua. The Ksh50 million award was only for violation of his right to a fair hearing,” she said during a media interview on Wednesday.
Her remarks followed a landmark ruling by a three-judge bench comprising Justices Eric Ogola, Anthony Mrima and Freda Mugambi, which found that while Gachagua’s constitutional rights were violated during the impeachment process, the Senate vote to remove him from office remained valid.
According to the court, procedural shortcomings—particularly relating to how requests tied to Gachagua’s medical condition were handled—amounted to a breach of the right to a fair hearing. However, the judges ruled that the violations were not sufficient to nullify the impeachment outcome.
Chege argued that the judgment reaffirmed Parliament’s constitutional authority to remove a Deputy President, while also emphasizing the importance of due process.
She maintained that the ruling should not be misinterpreted as reinstating Gachagua or questioning the legitimacy of the impeachment vote.
“The judgment only addressed the issue of fair hearing. It did not reinstate Gachagua or invalidate the impeachment decision by Parliament,” she said.
Karua backs court finding on rights violation
NARC-Kenya leader Martha Karua welcomed the High Court’s finding that Gachagua’s rights were violated, describing it as an important affirmation of constitutional protections during parliamentary proceedings.
While she did not dispute the court’s decision to uphold the impeachment, Karua argued that the recognition of procedural violations was significant and should not be downplayed.
In her remarks, Karua maintained that constitutional safeguards must be strictly observed, especially in proceedings that determine the removal of a high-ranking state officer.
She argued that failure to respect due process undermines the credibility of parliamentary decisions and risks weakening public confidence in democratic institutions.
Karua further emphasized that even when institutions reach politically supported outcomes, they must still operate within the strict boundaries of the Constitution.
Gachagua welcomes damages award, questions process
Former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua also reacted to the ruling, welcoming the court’s decision to award him Ksh50 million for violation of his right to a fair hearing.
However, he maintained that the impeachment process was fundamentally flawed and raised concerns about how the Senate conducted the proceedings.
Gachagua argued that while the court upheld the impeachment, the finding of constitutional violations validated his long-standing claim that he was not accorded an adequate opportunity to defend himself.
His allies have since described the ruling as a partial victory, citing the damages award as evidence that due process was not fully observed during his removal from office.
Kindiki says ruling affirms lawful transition
Deputy President Kithure Kindiki, who assumed office following Gachagua’s impeachment, welcomed the High Court ruling, interpreting it as confirmation that the impeachment process and subsequent succession were lawful.
Kindiki maintained that Parliament acted within its constitutional mandate and that the court had effectively settled questions surrounding the legitimacy of the transition.
He said the ruling reinforced institutional order and affirmed that the change in leadership followed due constitutional procedures.
Although Kindiki did not issue an extensive political statement, his allies said the judgment helped put to rest lingering uncertainty over the legitimacy of his appointment as Deputy President.
Court clarifies balance between rights and impeachment
In its ruling, the High Court held that while Gachagua was denied a fair hearing during the Senate proceedings, the breach did not meet the threshold required to overturn an impeachment decision.
The judges noted that Parliament retains the constitutional authority to remove a Deputy President, provided that the process broadly meets legal requirements.
However, they warned that procedural fairness must always be observed, even in politically charged proceedings.
The ruling has triggered widespread debate across Kenya’s political landscape, with leaders and analysts offering differing interpretations of its impact.
While one school of thought argues that the decision strengthens parliamentary authority, others believe it exposes procedural gaps that could affect future impeachment cases.
Legal experts say the judgment is likely to serve as a reference point in future disputes involving the balance between legislative power and constitutional rights.
