Gachagua's Impeachment Saga: High Court Upholds Ruling, Appeal Looms!

Former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua has announced his intention to appeal a High Court decision that upheld his impeachment, despite the court acknowledging that his constitutional right to a fair hearing was violated. Speaking shortly after a three-judge bench affirmed his removal from office, Gachagua expressed respect for the Judiciary but vehemently disagreed with its interpretation of the law and application of facts surrounding his impeachment, vowing to challenge the ruling at the Court of Appeal.

The High Court's ruling presented a paradoxical outcome: it declared the impeachment process conducted by the National Assembly and Senate as lawful and constitutionally valid, yet simultaneously found that Gachagua's right to a fair hearing had been infringed during the Senate proceedings. Specifically, the court highlighted that lawmakers had declined his request for an adjournment on medical grounds. However, the judges ruled that this violation was not sufficient to invalidate the impeachment, citing concerns about creating constitutional uncertainty and a potential scenario of having two individuals claiming the Deputy President's office. The court also upheld the nomination and approval of the current Deputy President, stating that Parliament and the President acted within legal and constitutional timelines.

Gachagua maintains that the fundamental principles of natural justice were disregarded throughout the proceedings, particularly in the Senate. He expressed strong conviction that justice would prevail in the appellate court. His stance has garnered significant support and sparked widespread criticism from the legal community, who have largely condemned the High Court's reasoning.

Prominent legal figures have lambasted the ruling for its perceived inconsistencies and dangerous precedent. Law Society of Kenya (LSK) President Charles Kanjama articulated that the decision defied 22 years of legal practice, stating that typically, an infringement of fair trial rights leads to the invalidation or setting aside of the hearing. He noted the rarity of a court acknowledging a fair trial violation but refusing to reverse the outcome, calling it inconsistent. Former Judicial Service Commission (JSC) Commissioner Macharia Njeru drew parallels with the Supreme Court's nullification of the 2017 presidential election based on procedural defects, arguing that the High Court's ruling created a perilous precedent.

LSK Vice President Wavinya Nicholas warned that the ruling could establish a precedent allowing constitutional rights to be violated and compensated with damages, rather than reversing the unconstitutional act. She observed that it appears to endorse the notion that a public officer can be removed through a process violating fundamental constitutional rights, yet the removal is permitted to stand. People's Liberation Party (PLP) leader and Senior Counsel Martha Karua emphatically stated that an unfair process cannot yield a just outcome, asserting that once the court found a fair hearing violation, it was duty-bound to nullify the impeachment. Karua branded the idea of damages substituting a fair hearing as a