The High Court ruling that upheld the impeachment of former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua while simultaneously finding violations of his right to a fair hearing has triggered fresh legal scrutiny, with Law Society of Kenya (LSK) President Charles Kanjama terming the decision inconsistent and unprecedented.
In a detailed reaction following the Monday judgment, Kanjama questioned the court’s approach, arguing that the finding of a violated fair trial should ordinarily lead to the nullification of the process or a retrial.
Instead, the court upheld the impeachment outcome, a move he described as a departure from established legal principles.
“Normally, when a right to fair trial or fair hearing is infringed, you invalidate the hearing, you set it aside, or you order a new trial,” Kanjama said.
“This is the first time in my experience as a lawyer that the court has made a clear finding that the right to a fair trial was substantively violated but has failed to reverse the underlying outcome.”
The three-judge bench had ruled that although Gachagua’s rights were infringed during the Senate impeachment proceedings, the process itself could not be undone because impeachment is a final political act.
Instead, the court awarded KSh50 million in damages, a decision Kanjama says raises serious jurisprudential questions.
He pointed to what he termed as contradictions within the court’s reasoning, noting that earlier legal interpretations had suggested impeachment outcomes could be overturned under certain circumstances.
“The court at that time said we can overturn the outcome of the impeachment, but today it has said once the impeachment is done, it cannot be overturned. There is a lot of inconsistency in the decision,” he argued.
Kanjama described the judgment as “groundbreaking,” but cautioned that it sets a complex precedent that could reshape how constitutional violations are handled in politically sensitive processes.
According to him, the ruling risks weakening safeguards around public participation and accountability.
“It is a ruling that, in my view, takes the country a bit backwards on issues of public participation,” he said, adding that he was “disappointed” with how the court handled some aspects of the case.
Beyond procedural concerns, the LSK president also raised questions about the court’s evaluation of evidence presented during the hearings.
He suggested that key arguments challenging the impeachment process may not have been fully considered.
“I feel that on some of the other aspects that were dealt with by the court, there was a tendency to disregard part of the evidence that was there to challenge,” he noted.
The ruling has effectively closed the door on Gachagua’s attempt to regain office, while simultaneously opening a new legal frontier on how courts balance constitutional violations against political finality.
Kanjama indicated that the matter is likely to proceed to the Court of Appeal, where he expects some of the contested issues to be revisited.
“I feel that this groundbreaking judgment of the court had a number of missteps that need to be addressed when the matter goes to the Court of Appeal,” he said.
The case now sets the stage for a broader constitutional debate, with legal experts divided on whether the court struck the right balance between upholding institutional decisions and protecting individual rights.