Gachagua Impeachment Ruling Sparks Heated Debate Among Kenya's Top Lawyers

By CivicLens Gazette

Kenya's political and legal landscape was thrown into fresh debate following the landmark High Court judgment that upheld the impeachment of former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua while simultaneously finding that his constitutional right to a fair hearing had been violated.

The ruling, delivered by a three-judge bench comprising Justices Eric Ogolla, Anthony Mrima and Frida Mugambi, has generated sharp divisions within Kenya's legal fraternity, with senior lawyers offering differing interpretations on its implications for Gachagua's political future and the development of constitutional jurisprudence in Kenya.

The judgment, which took more than ten hours to read, affirmed that Parliament and the Senate acted within the Constitution when they removed Gachagua from office in October 2024. However, the judges also found that the Senate violated Article 50 of the Constitution by refusing to adjourn proceedings despite Gachagua's hospitalization, thereby denying him a fair hearing. Consequently, the court awarded him KSh50 million in constitutional damages. Nevertheless, it declined to quash the impeachment itself.

The decision has left many legal scholars grappling with what some describe as an apparent contradiction: how can a court find that a person's constitutional rights were violated, yet still uphold the process that led to his removal from office?

What the High Court Ruling Means for Rigathi Gachagua

In practical terms, the judgment means that Rigathi Gachagua remains impeached and does not regain his former position as Deputy President.

The ruling effectively validates the Senate's decision and confirms the legality of the impeachment process, despite acknowledging procedural shortcomings regarding his right to a fair hearing.

However, legal experts point out that the matter is far from over.

Gachagua retains the right to challenge the verdict at the Court of Appeal and, if necessary, the Supreme Court. This means the constitutional battle surrounding one of Kenya's most consequential political events remains ongoing.

Another major question emerging from the judgment concerns Gachagua's eligibility to contest the presidency in the 2027 General Election.

Law Society of Kenya President Charles Kanjama has argued that the High Court did not expressly pronounce itself on whether the impeachment bars Gachagua from seeking elective office. According to Kanjama, the issue remains unsettled and may ultimately require determination by higher courts.

Many constitutional lawyers believe that until all appeal mechanisms are exhausted, Gachagua cannot automatically be disqualified from running for office.

Therefore, despite the setback, the ruling does not necessarily extinguish his 2027 presidential ambitions.

Ahmednasir Abdullahi Questions the Logic of the Judgment

Senior Counsel Ahmednasir Abdullahi emerged as one of the most vocal critics of the ruling.

The renowned constitutional lawyer reportedly questioned why the court upheld the impeachment after expressly finding that Gachagua's right to a fair hearing had been violated.

For Ahmednasir, constitutional rights are fundamental and any breach of those rights should ordinarily invalidate the process that produced the impugned decision.

His position reflects a long-standing legal principle that due process and fair hearing are indispensable pillars of constitutional democracy.

According to observers, Ahmednasir's criticism centers on what he sees as inconsistency between the findings of the judges and the ultimate orders issued by the court.

His interpretation has resonated with several lawyers who argue that the violation of Article 50 should have automatically rendered the impeachment unconstitutional.

Miguna Miguna's Constitutional Perspective

Former Nairobi gubernatorial candidate and lawyer Miguna Miguna has also maintained that constitutional safeguards must be upheld without exception.

Miguna has consistently argued that constitutional processes should be applied strictly and that political considerations should never override fundamental rights.

Although differing interpretations continue to emerge, Miguna's school of thought emphasizes that constitutional violations should attract meaningful remedies and that courts should avoid creating precedents that may weaken the protection of rights guaranteed under the Constitution.

His views align with concerns raised by some constitutional scholars who fear that the judgment may establish a precedent whereby a violation of rights does not necessarily invalidate the outcome of a political process.

Willis Otieno Says the Case is Far From Over

Constitutional lawyer Willis Otieno believes the High Court ruling leaves significant legal questions unanswered.

According to him, the judgment contains unresolved contradictions that are likely to trigger further litigation.

Otieno argues that the appellate courts will have an opportunity to provide greater clarity on the relationship between procedural fairness and the validity of impeachment proceedings.

His assessment suggests that the case may ultimately shape future impeachment processes and define the extent to which constitutional rights influence political accountability mechanisms.

Tom Ojienda Defends the Judgment

Senior Counsel Tom Ojienda has taken a different view.

He believes the judges reached a sound decision by balancing constitutional principles with the doctrine of separation of powers.

Supporters of this position argue that impeachment is primarily a political process conducted by Parliament and the Senate, and that courts should exercise restraint when reviewing such proceedings.

From this perspective, procedural irregularities do not necessarily invalidate the entire process if the substantive constitutional requirements were met.

This school of thought seeks to preserve the autonomy of Parliament while ensuring that constitutional rights remain protected.

Charles Kanjama Highlights Ambiguities

Law Society of Kenya President Charles Kanjama has pointed out that one of the biggest weaknesses of the ruling lies in its failure to expressly address the consequences of impeachment on Gachagua's eligibility to seek future office.

Kanjama believes lawyers will continue interpreting the decision differently until appellate courts provide authoritative guidance.

His remarks underscore the uncertainty surrounding one of the most politically sensitive questions heading into the 2027 elections.

Evans Ndong' Says the Constitution Was "Butchered"

Lawyer Evans Ndong' offered one of the strongest criticisms of the judgment.

He argued that once the court established that Gachagua's right to a fair hearing had been violated, the logical consequence should have been nullification of the impeachment.

According to Ndong', the Constitution cannot recognize the existence of a violation while simultaneously preserving the outcome that emerged from that violation.

His position reflects concerns shared by a section of the legal fraternity that the ruling creates dangerous ambiguity in constitutional law.

Why the Court of Appeal Will Be Crucial

Legal analysts agree that the Court of Appeal is now likely to become the next battleground.

Should Gachagua appeal, appellate judges will be required to answer several critical questions:

• Can an impeachment process survive a finding that constitutional rights were violated?
• Does a breach of Article 50 automatically invalidate parliamentary proceedings?
• Is Gachagua eligible to contest the presidency in 2027?
• What remedies are appropriate where rights violations occur during impeachment?

The answers to these questions could redefine Kenya's constitutional jurisprudence and establish important precedents for future generations.

Political Implications for 2027

Politically, the ruling represents both a setback and an opportunity for Gachagua.

On one hand, the court upheld his removal from office, denying him the vindication he sought.

On the other hand, the finding that his fair hearing rights were violated provides him with political ammunition as he positions himself as an opposition figure ahead of the 2027 elections.

Many analysts believe the legal battle is now intertwined with the broader political contest between Gachagua and President William Ruto.

As the case heads toward higher courts, every judicial pronouncement is likely to influence the country's political realignments.

A Judgment That Will Shape Kenya's Constitutional Future

Beyond the fortunes of Rigathi Gachagua, legal scholars believe the case could become one of the most significant constitutional decisions since the promulgation of the 2010 Constitution.

The ruling raises profound questions about the balance between parliamentary sovereignty and judicial oversight, the meaning of fair hearing rights, and the remedies available when constitutional violations occur.

Whether the Court of Appeal upholds or overturns the judgment, one thing is certain: the Gachagua impeachment case has evolved from a political dispute into a defining constitutional moment for Kenya.

And as some of Kenya's most prominent lawyers continue to dissect the ruling, the final chapter of this historic legal battle is yet to be written.