Lawyers Explain Why Gachagua Can Win at the Court of Appeal

Lawyers have explained why former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua could succeed at the Court of Appeal, arguing that several aspects of the High Court ruling and the impeachment process may be subjected to further legal scrutiny.

The High Court upheld Gachagua’s impeachment ruling that the process followed by the National Assembly and Senate was lawful and that the final outcome remains valid under the Constitution.

In a statement after the ruling, lawyer Donald Kipkorir said the High Court found that Gachagua’s constitutional rights had been violated but chose to award him compensation instead of cancelling the impeachment process.

According to Kipkorir, the ruling has left the Court of Appeal with two options: uphold the finding that Gachagua’s rights were violated and overturn the impeachment, or reverse the finding on the rights violation and allow the impeachment to stand.

“Constitutional Division of our High Court holds that the Constitutional Rights of Gachagua were violated but proceeds to compensate him for the violation instead of annulling the process. The High Court has given the Court of Appeal an easy bifurcated choice: affirm the violation & nullify the impeachment or set aside the alleged violation & confirm the impeachment. The decision of the High Court is a judicial absurdity: reduction and absurdumi,” Kipkorir said.

Ahmednasir Abdullahi

Lawyer Ahmednasir Abdullahi said he had maintained since 2024 that former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua was denied a fair trial during his impeachment in the Senate.

He noted that the High Court has now agreed with that position, finding that Gachagua’s right to a fair hearing was violated.

Abdullahi added that under Article 25(c) of the Constitution, the right to a fair trial is non-derogable, meaning it cannot be limited or taken away, and therefore any process that violates it cannot stand in law.

“I said it in 2024 when Rigathi Gachagua was impeached by the Senate. The High Court agreed with me today that indeed he was denied a fair trial. A decision that infringe on a litigant’s non derogable rights like the right to a fair trial under Article 25(c) can’t stand in law,” Abdullahi said.

Further, Abdullahi said that under Article 25(c) of the Constitution, the right to a fair trial is non-derogable and cannot be limited under any circumstances.

The Senior Counsel questioned how the court could rely on what he described as “quasi-constitutional” reasoning to avoid overturning the impeachment of Rigathi Gachagua, despite finding that there were issues related to fair hearing.

Also Read: High Court Issues Final Ruling on Gachagua Impeachment Battle

Gachagua Judgment Leaves Loopholes

He further argued that, in his view, the judgment appears weak in legal grounding, describing it as resting on what he termed “shaky, shallow, soggy and sandy soil.”

“Under Article 25(c) of the constitution, the right to fair trial is a non-derogable right. So how can the court make quasi constitutional excuses on amorphous grounds in its refusal to set aside the impeachment of Hon Rigathi Gachagua? The Gachagua judgment in my humble opinion is on a shaky, shallow, soggy and sandy soil,” Abdullahi added.

Miguna Miguna

Lawyer Miguna Miguna said that while he does not agree with the politics of former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua, he believes the court’s ruling on his impeachment was flawed.

He stated that although he has opposed Gachagua’s political style for many years, his commitment to fairness, justice, and the rule of law compels him to disagree with the court’s decision.

Also Read: “We Accept Whatever Outcome” — Gachagua Speaks Ahead of Court Ruling on Impeachment Case

Miguna further argued that the ruling appeared predetermined and legally weak, claiming the impeachment process was rushed and driven by personal political disagreements, and insisted that the High Court should have nullified the entire process.

“I believe that the Court’s ruling today was predetermined, is legally unsound and factually faulty. It should be overturned on appeal. The impeachment of Gachagua was not conducted fairly, was unjustly rushed and was motivated by parochial personal differences with Ruto. The court ought to have nullified it,” Miguna said.

Follow our WhatsApp channel for instant news updates.

Former DP Rigathi Gachagua and President William Ruto at the Kakamega State Lodge during a visit to Western Kenya on August 30, 2023. PHOTO/PCS.