NAIROBI, Kenya — Law Society of Kenya (LSK) President Charles Kanjama has described the High Court’s decision on former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua’s impeachment as a balanced ruling that delivered partial victories and disappointments to all parties involved.
Speaking during an interview on Citizen TV shortly after the judgment was delivered on Monday, Kanjama said the three-judge bench crafted a decision that ensured neither side emerged with a complete triumph.
“Each side has something to take home,” Kanjama said. “Everyone has got something, something that they may like and something that they don’t like.”
The ruling marks a significant chapter in the constitutional dispute arising from Gachagua’s impeachment in October 2024, which made him the first deputy president in Kenya’s history to be removed from office through the constitutional impeachment process.
According to Kanjama, the court’s finding that Gachagua’s right to a fair trial had been violated was a major legal victory for the former deputy president. The judges also awarded him Sh50 million in damages, a move the LSK president said helped clear some of the constitutional and ethical questions that had arisen during the impeachment proceedings.
“The effect of that, together with the declaration, is that the taint of unethical conduct or conduct that is contrary to the Constitution against Rigathi Gachagua has been lifted,” Kanjama observed.
However, he noted that Gachagua’s legal team was dissatisfied because the court did not go further and invalidate the impeachment despite finding that his fair trial rights had been infringed.
Kanjama pointed to Article 25 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010, which protects certain rights from limitation under any circumstances, including the right to a fair trial.
“There is that concern,” he said, explaining why Gachagua’s supporters viewed the judgment as incomplete despite the damages award.
On the other hand, Kanjama said the Senate and the government secured what they considered the most critical outcome: the impeachment remains in force, and Deputy President Kithure Kindiki retains his position without legal uncertainty.
The senior advocate also highlighted what he viewed as a possible inconsistency in the court’s reasoning regarding Senate procedure. He noted that the judges extensively discussed the constitutional importance of processing impeachment proceedings through a special committee before consideration by the full Senate.
Despite that analysis, he said, the court ultimately declined to invalidate the Senate’s process on those grounds.
“At the end of that very elaborate explanation of why you need the Senate to proceed through committee, the court did not make the final conclusion, which is to say that that procedure was also invalid for that reason,” Kanjama said.
He added that the judges appeared to rely on a Supreme Court precedent before stopping short of reaching what some legal observers expected would be the logical conclusion.
The LSK president said the judgment is likely to generate further legal debate on the interpretation of constitutional safeguards, impeachment procedures, and the remedies available when fundamental rights are violated during political processes.
Given the mixed outcome, Kanjama predicted that the matter may not end at the High Court.
“I would not be surprised if all parties file appeals to the Court of Appeal,” he said.
