NAIROBI, Kenya Jun 9 – People’s Liberation Party leader Martha Karua has criticised the court ruling on the impeachment of former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua, describing the judgment as “flawed and troubling.”
In a statement posted on X, Karua argued that once the court established that the right to a fair hearing had been violated, it was constitutionally obligated to nullify the impeachment proceedings.
“Damages cannot be a substitute to the right to fair hearing, and this pronouncement is a blot on our jurisprudence,” Karua stated.
Her remarks come amid continued debate over the legality and procedural fairness surrounding Gachagua’s impeachment process, with legal and political stakeholders sharply divided over the court’s findings and implications of the ruling.
The High Court upheld the impeachment of former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua, ruling that the process was constitutionally valid and final.
The court arrived at the finding even as it found that the Senate violated his rights by declining to adjourn proceedings to allow him to participate on medical grounds.
In a judgment delivered by a three-judge bench comprising Justices Eric Ogola, Anthony Mrima and Freidah Mugambi, the court dismissed petitions seeking to overturn Gachagua’s removal from office, affirming that both the National Assembly and the Senate acted within their constitutional mandates.
The judges held that while courts retain jurisdiction to interpret the Constitution and determine whether constitutional limits were observed during impeachment proceedings, they cannot reverse a completed impeachment of a Deputy President where the Constitution provides a self-executing process.
The bench distinguished the removal of a Deputy President from the impeachment of a county governor, describing the former as a process marked by “constitutional finality” and the latter as one governed by statute and therefore more susceptible to judicial intervention.
According to the judges, the Constitution does not contemplate a situation where a court could reinstate an impeached Deputy President after a successor has already been lawfully appointed under Article 149(1), noting that such a move would create the untenable scenario of two Deputy Presidents holding office simultaneously.
The court also upheld the legality of Prof. Kithure Kindiki’s appointment as Deputy President, ruling that the process under Article 149(1) did not require public participation and finding no conflict of interest because Kindiki had resigned as Interior Cabinet Secretary before assuming the office.
On public participation, the judges applied the “reasonableness standard” and found that constitutional requirements had been met during the impeachment process.
The court further rejected allegations of bias against the bench and dismissed arguments challenging its jurisdiction to hear constitutional questions arising from the impeachment proceedings.
