Articles

The High Court's judgment on former Kenyan Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua's impeachment centers on a profound constitutional dilemma. Although the court found that the Senate's refusal to grant Gachagua an adjournment during his illness breached his right to a fair hearing, it declined to quash the impeachment to avoid a "constitutional crisis" of dual incumbency. Instead, the judges awarded Gachagua Kshs. 50,000,000 in damages specifically to vindicate his breached rights and restore his dignity. This decision highlights a complex legal tension: while the monetary remedy addressed the violation of Gachagua's personal dignity, the court ultimately prioritized state stability over a procedural breach that it simultaneously noted was "plainly going to occasion a miscarriage of justice".

In its recent judgment, the High Court upheld the impeachment of former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua while simultaneously declaring that his right to a fair hearing had been violated during the Senate trial. By awarding damages rather than quashing the removal, the Court sparked a significant debate over whether constitutional remedies must mandate invalidation for procedural breaches or if courts possess the discretion to choose alternative forms of relief. This ruling ultimately hinges on a complex legal characterization: whether the requirement for a fair hearing was a fundamental precondition for the exercise of parliamentary power or merely a duty owed alongside a valid removal process.