Former Kakamega Senator and Deputy Party Leader of the Democracy for the Citizens Party (DCP), Cleophas Malala, has sharply criticised the High Court ruling that upheld the impeachment of former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua, despite finding that his constitutional rights were violated.
In a statement issued on Tuesday, Malala said the decision by the three-judge bench raises fundamental constitutional concerns, particularly on the enforcement of the right to a fair hearing.
“As a Deputy Party Leader and a firm believer in the rule of law, I am troubled and perturbed by the decision of the three-judge bench,” Malala said, referring to the ruling delivered on Monday.
The High Court upheld Gachagua’s impeachment and validated the process undertaken by Parliament, while also affirming the appointment of his successor.
However, the bench found that Gachagua’s right to a fair hearing had been violated after the Senate declined to adjourn proceedings despite his request on medical grounds. The court awarded him KSh50 million in damages for the violation.
Malala argued that the court’s acknowledgment of a constitutional breach should have invalidated the entire impeachment process.
“This raises a fundamental constitutional question: if the process was flawed and unconstitutional, how can its outcome be allowed to stand?” he posed.
He emphasised that the right to a fair hearing under Article 50 of the Constitution is not a procedural technicality, but a core safeguard against injustice that must be strictly upheld.
“The right to a fair hearing is the cornerstone of our Constitution. It cannot be treated as a mere formality to be overlooked or compensated after the fact,” Malala stated.
According to the former senator, impeachment proceedings carry serious legal and political consequences and must therefore meet the highest standards of procedural fairness and constitutional compliance.
He questioned whether monetary compensation alone is sufficient to remedy a violation of such magnitude, warning that the ruling could set a concerning precedent.
“Can a violation of a fundamental right be remedied solely through monetary compensation? Can substantial compliance suffice where the Constitution demands strict adherence?” Malala asked.
He further cautioned against what he described as the risk of political considerations influencing constitutional interpretation, warning that such an approach could undermine public confidence in the judiciary.
“These are not questions about one individual alone but about the future of constitutional governance in Kenya,” he added.
Malala warned that the implications of the ruling could extend beyond Gachagua’s case, affecting how constitutional rights are protected for all citizens.
“Our judicial system remains the sole guardian of the Constitution. Its decisions must reinforce, not weaken, public confidence in the inviolability of constitutional rights,” he said.
He called for a national dialogue on the interpretation and enforcement of constitutional rights, urging Kenyans to reflect on whether the country’s commitment to due process is absolute or conditional.
“The Constitution protects both the process and the outcome. We cannot defend one while disregarding the other,” Malala stated.
The ruling continues to trigger mixed reactions across the political divide, with legal experts and political leaders weighing in on its broader implications for constitutional law and governance in Kenya.