Senior Counsel Nelson Havi has sharply criticised the High Court’s decision upholding the impeachment of former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua, questioning both the reasoning and length of the judgment in remarks that have stirred fresh legal debate.
Speaking during an interview, Havi dismissed the ruling as unnecessarily elaborate and accused the judges of lacking candour in their interpretation of the case.
“These judges are being deceitful. If they wanted to dismiss the petition of Gachagua forthrightly, they would have done it in 20 pages. This circumlocution of 390 pages is a contrived lie,” Havi said, faulting the structure and reasoning of the judgment.
He further questioned public confidence in the judiciary, arguing that the handling of such politically sensitive disputes risks undermining constitutional faith.
“What confidence do we have that a majority of these judges will uphold the Constitution?” he posed.
The High Court bench had ruled that Parliament acted within the Constitution when it impeached Gachagua, finding that both the National Assembly and the Senate followed lawful procedures despite noting certain flaws in the process, including issues touching on fair hearing.
The court ultimately upheld the impeachment but awarded damages over procedural violations.
However, Havi maintained that impeachment proceedings should not be treated as ordinary criminal trials, but as internal disciplinary mechanisms within the political structure of government.
“The removal of the President or Deputy President is a disciplinary procedure. The National Assembly and the Senate, which have oversight powers over the Executive, sit as a quasi-judicial trial court,” he said, emphasising the constitutional role of Parliament in accountability.
He further argued that the outcome of the parliamentary vote should have guided a more straightforward judicial conclusion.
According to him, the overwhelming numbers in favour of impeachment reflected the will of the representatives, making the procedural disputes secondary.
“As a matter of fact, the votes were in favour of impeaching Gachagua. So, why not just go through the due process?” he added.
The High Court ruling had affirmed that Parliament met the constitutional threshold for impeachment while maintaining that courts retain jurisdiction to review such processes for legality and fairness.
It also upheld Gachagua’s removal but faulted aspects of the Senate proceedings.
The judgment has continued to draw mixed reactions from legal experts and political actors, with supporters praising it as a reinforcement of constitutional order, while critics argue it exposes tensions between judicial authority and parliamentary supremacy.