Former nominated Senator Millicent Omanga has weighed in on the ongoing court case challenging the impeachment of former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua, warning that the proceedings expose deeper questions about constitutional fidelity and institutional independence in Kenya.
Her remarks come as the High Court continues to hear petitions questioning the legality of Gachagua’s removal from office in October 2024, a decision that was previously approved by both the National Assembly and the Senate before being escalated to the Judiciary for review.
In a strongly worded statement reflecting on the ongoing hearing, Omanga argued that the impeachment process fell short of constitutional expectations and should not have proceeded in its final form.
“Today’s hearing on the impeachment of H.E. Rigathi Gachagua lays bare a troubling reality: a process that never met the constitutional threshold, yet marched on regardless. What should have been a solemn exercise in accountability has instead become a mockery of our Constitution,” she said.
Her comments point to growing political debate surrounding whether Parliament adhered strictly to Article 145 of the Constitution, which outlines the procedure for removing a Deputy President from office.
The case before the court is largely centred on allegations that the process was procedurally flawed and politically influenced.
Omanga further questioned the role of Parliament in the impeachment process, suggesting that legislative independence may have been compromised in the build-up to Gachagua’s removal.
“When due process is sidelined and numbers replace principle, Parliament ceases to be a guardian of the people’s will and becomes a rubber stamp. The growing capture of the Legislature by the Executive is not just political theater—it is a direct assault on the doctrine of separation of powers,” she added.
The impeachment, which was approved after heated debates in both Houses, has since become one of the most contested political-legal decisions in recent years, drawing arguments from both sides of the political divide.
Gachagua’s legal team is currently seeking to overturn the impeachment, arguing that the charges did not meet the constitutional threshold, that public participation was insufficient, and that procedural fairness was not observed.
The State and Parliament, however, maintain that the process fully complied with constitutional requirements and that courts should not interfere with parliamentary decisions already concluded.
Omanga warned that the implications of the case extend beyond the individuals involved, suggesting that it could shape the future of Kenya’s democratic institutions.
“A House that echoes one man’s voice cannot claim to represent a nation. If oversight collapses, democracy follows,” she said.
She concluded by emphasizing that the outcome of the case will not only determine Gachagua’s political fate but also set a precedent for how future impeachment proceedings are conducted in the country.
“History will judge not just the outcome of this case, but the integrity or failure of the institutions entrusted to protect our Republic,” she stated.
The High Court is expected to continue with substantive hearings in the coming sessions as it weighs the constitutional questions raised in the petition. The ruling is anticipated to have significant political and legal implications for Kenya’s governance framework.