The Legal and Political Storm Around the Gachagua Judgment

The Legal and Political Storm Around the Gachagua Judgment

The High Court judgment on former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua's impeachment has sparked one of the most intense legal debates Kenya has witnessed in recent years. While the court found that some of Gachagua's constitutional rights had been violated during the impeachment process, it nevertheless declined to overturn the impeachment itself. Instead, it awarded remedies for the violations while allowing the outcome of the process to stand.

This decision has left many prominent lawyers, constitutional scholars, and public figures deeply divided.

One of the strongest reactions came from lawyer and political commentator Donald B Kipkorir, who described the judgment as a "judicial absurdity." His argument is straightforward: if the court established that constitutional rights were violated, then the logical consequence should have been to invalidate the entire process. In his view, the Court of Appeal now faces a clear choice—either affirm the violation and nullify the impeachment, or reject the finding of violation and uphold the impeachment.

Similarly, constitutional lawyer Ahmednasir Abdullahi expressed serious reservations about the ruling. He pointed to Article 25(c) of the Constitution, which protects the right to a fair trial as a non-derogable right. His criticism suggests that once such a fundamental right is breached, the court should be reluctant to allow the resulting process to remain valid. He characterized the judgment as resting on shaky legal foundations and predicted that it could face significant scrutiny on appeal.

Perhaps more striking was the reaction from Miguna Miguna. Miguna has long been a critic of Gachagua's politics and openly states that he disagrees with the former deputy president's political style. Yet despite his personal reservations, he argued that justice and the rule of law should take precedence over political preferences. According to Miguna, the impeachment process appeared rushed and unfair, and he believes the court ought to have nullified it entirely.

What is particularly notable about these reactions is that they come from individuals who often hold different political viewpoints. Yet on this issue, they appear united by a concern over procedural fairness and constitutional consistency. Their common argument is that constitutional rights cannot merely be acknowledged after the fact; they must be protected in a way that preserves the integrity of the legal process itself.

However, supporters of the judgment argue that courts must balance competing constitutional interests. A court may find procedural violations while also determining that those violations were not severe enough to invalidate an entire constitutional process. From this perspective, compensation or declaratory relief may be sufficient without necessarily overturning a political outcome reached through Parliament and the Senate.

My Assessment

Based solely on the legal reasoning reflected in the reactions shown, the controversy arises because the judgment appears to send two messages at once. On one hand, it recognizes that rights were violated. On the other, it allows the impeachment outcome to remain intact. That combination naturally creates questions about the practical consequences of constitutional violations.

The Court of Appeal will likely be asked to clarify whether a proven violation of fundamental rights should automatically invalidate an impeachment process or whether courts can separate the violation from the final outcome. Whatever the appeal court decides will have consequences far beyond Gachagua's political future. It will shape how Kenya interprets constitutional safeguards, due process, and the limits of parliamentary power for years to come.

For now, the judgment has succeeded in doing one thing: it has transformed a political dispute into a landmark constitutional debate that is likely far from over.