The High Court has awarded former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua Sh50 million in damages after finding that his right to a fair hearing was violated during his impeachment proceedings, even as it upheld the legality of the removal process.
In a judgment delivered on Monday, June 8, 2026, the court ruled that although the impeachment met the constitutional threshold and therefore remains valid, parts of the Senate proceedings fell short of the fair trial standards guaranteed under the Constitution.
The bench found that senators proceeded with hearings despite requests for adjournment on medical grounds, concluding that the refusal to suspend proceedings violated Gachagua’s right to a fair hearing.
The court noted that while Parliament has broad constitutional powers to impeach and remove state officers, such authority must be exercised in line with due process, including allowing the affected official adequate opportunity to participate.
The judges first confirmed that the court had jurisdiction to hear the case before addressing the substantive issues raised in the petition.
On allegations of bias against the Speaker of the National Assembly, the court dismissed the claims for lack of sufficient evidence.
The court also upheld the public participation process preceding the impeachment, finding that Parliament had issued adequate notices through newspaper advertisements in both English and Kiswahili, allowing members of the public to submit their views.
“We are satisfied that the public participation conducted during the impeachment process met the constitutional threshold,” the bench stated.
On the nomination and approval of Deputy President Kithure Kindiki, the court held that the process was conducted transparently and ruled that public participation was not constitutionally required for Parliament’s approval of the nomination.
The bench declined to declare Standing Order No. 64 unconstitutional, stating that the issue was not the seven-day timeline itself but the manner in which parliamentary proceedings were conducted. It held that the timeline was constitutional, while noting that Parliament retains the authority to amend its procedures if necessary.
On the legal framework governing the removal of a Deputy President, the court observed that Article 150 of the Constitution lacks a detailed statutory framework, creating procedural gaps that may affect legal clarity and public confidence.
The judges urged Parliament to urgently enact legislation to provide a clear framework for future impeachment proceedings under Article 150.
However, the court stressed that the absence of such legislation did not invalidate the impeachment process against Gachagua, noting that Parliament relied on Articles 144 and 145 of the Constitution to guide the proceedings.
On timelines, the bench found that while Standing Order 78(2) sets a 10-day period for special committee investigations, there is no specific constitutional timeline for plenary impeachment hearings in the Senate.
It ruled that the Senate’s adoption of a 10-day timeline was a procedural decision and did not amount to a constitutional violation.
Email your news TIPS to Editor@Kahawatungu.com — this is our only official communication channel
