A High Court judgment upholding the impeachment of former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua while simultaneously awarding him Sh50 million for violation of his right to a fair hearing has triggered intense legal debate and public scrutiny.
The ruling, delivered by Justices Freda Mugambi, Eric Ogola (Presiding Judge), and Anthony Mrima during proceedings held at the Milimani Law Courts in Nairobi, has now placed Kenya’s Judiciary at the centre of a constitutional storm, with leading legal minds sharply divided over its implications.
At the heart of the controversy is the court’s finding that although the impeachment process was valid, Gachagua’s rights under Article 50 of the Constitution were violated, warranting compensation.
This dual outcome has been described by some legal practitioners as contradictory and potentially damaging to constitutional jurisprudence.
Prominent lawyers and constitutional experts have termed the decision “absurd,” “dangerous,” and a “legal contradiction,” warning that it could blur the boundaries between accountability and procedural fairness in impeachment proceedings.
Critics argue that awarding damages while leaving the impeachment intact creates uncertainty in how courts should remedy constitutional violations.
“This ruling raises a fundamental question: can a process be both lawful and unconstitutional at the same time, and if so, what does that mean for justice?” one senior lawyer posed during legal commentary following the judgment.
Others, however, have defended the decision, arguing that it reinforces the principle that constitutional violations must attract remedies even where the final outcome of a process remains valid.
They maintain that the award does not overturn the impeachment but acknowledges procedural injustice.
The ruling has also reignited broader debate on whether monetary compensation is sufficient redress for violations of fundamental rights, especially in high-stakes political and constitutional cases.
Legal analysts warn that the precedent could influence future impeachment and disciplinary proceedings involving state officers, potentially encouraging more litigation over procedural fairness rather than substantive outcomes.