Nominated Senator and lawyer Karen Nyamu has defended the High Court’s decision to uphold the impeachment of former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua while awarding him damages, describing the ruling as a careful balance between constitutional order and judicial restraint.
In a statement following the landmark judgment, Nyamu argued that the court deliberately avoided plunging the country into a constitutional crisis by declining to nullify an already concluded political process.
She maintained that the decision reflects a pragmatic application of constitutional law, particularly in cases where legal violations intersect with institutional stability.
“The High Court’s decision to award damages rather than annul Riggy G’s impeachment is an application of constitutional pragmatism and judicial restraint,” Nyamu stated.
Her remarks come after a three-judge bench upheld Gachagua’s removal from office, affirming that Parliament acted within the law during the impeachment process.
However, the court also found that his right to a fair hearing had been violated and ordered the Senate to compensate him with Sh50 million in damages.
Nyamu emphasized that the judges were guided by the doctrine of fait accompli, a legal principle recognizing situations that have already taken place and cannot be reversed without causing wider disruption.
According to her, the court acknowledged that reversing the impeachment after a new Deputy President had already been sworn in would create a dangerous institutional vacuum.
“In constitutional law, the court must balance procedural violations against the doctrine of fait accompli — a state of affairs that has already transpired and cannot be legally undone without triggering a constitutional crisis,” she explained.
She further noted that the judiciary’s role is not only to enforce procedural compliance but also to safeguard the continuity of governance.
By letting the impeachment stand while awarding damages, Nyamu said, the court sent a clear signal that constitutional breaches carry consequences, even where reversal is not feasible.
“By declining to quash the impeachment, the three-judge bench recognized that once a new Deputy President is lawfully sworn into office, the constitutional framework limits the judiciary's power to reverse a completed political process,” she said.
“It is a clear message that while procedural compliance is a must, the stability of the constitutional order remains paramount.”
Meanwhile, Nyamu disclosed that the Senate is preparing to challenge the financial penalty imposed by the court.
She cited budgetary constraints as a key reason behind the appeal, indicating that the legislative body may not be in a position to meet the compensation order.
“Senate is appealing this decision because we simply do not have the unallocated budget for a Sh50 million award,” she added.
The ruling has sparked mixed reactions across the political and legal landscape, with some observers praising the court for striking a balance between accountability and stability, while others argue that the damages fall short of addressing the alleged procedural flaws.