Experts Weigh In On Gachagua's Political Rights

By Elijah Cherutich

Debate has intensified over the balance between political accountability and constitutional rights following the High Court’s ruling on Rigathi Gachagua’s impeachment, with legal experts offering conflicting views on the former deputy president’s eligibility for public office.

As Gachagua battles legal hurdles in an attempt to overturn his impeachment, lawyers remain divided on the implications of the court’s decision and what it means for his political future.

Nakuru lawyer Bernhard Kipkoech argued that, as matters stand, Gachagua remains impeached and is therefore barred from seeking public office unless a higher court intervenes in his favour.

According to Kipkoech, impeachment constitutes a final determination by Parliament, meaning the former deputy president can only pursue elective office if he successfully obtains orders from the Court of Appeal suspending the effects of the impeachment.

“According to my understanding of article 99 of the constitution, if you have been impeached, you can’t seek power unless you have appealed and filed an application of stay of the impeachment to ensure that it’s frozen during the proceedings of the appeal case”, he said.

Kipkoech noted that the next phase of the dispute at the Court of Appeal is likely to attract significant public interest as both sides seek either to uphold or overturn the High Court judgment.

He further argued that the ruling failed to conclusively resolve the legal questions surrounding the impeachment, maintaining that a finding that Gachagua’s right to a fair hearing had been violated should ordinarily have resulted in the nullification of the impeachment process.

Former Nakuru mayor John Kitilit, however, took a different view, describing impeachment as a political accountability mechanism largely driven by the judgment of elected leaders rather than strict legal considerations.

Kitilit said courts play a limited role by examining whether constitutional and procedural safeguards were followed, particularly in ensuring affected individuals receive a fair hearing.

“The outcome of the impeachment was a welcome to many because of the toxic nature of Cachagua’s brand of politics and thus the politicians carried out their work diligently”. He said.

His remarks underscore the wider debate over whether impeachment proceedings should be viewed primarily through a legal lens or as a political process entrusted to elected representatives.

Meanwhile, Law Society of Kenya president Charles Kanjama has maintained that Gachagua remains eligible to contest for public office until all available legal avenues have been exhausted, presenting a contrasting interpretation of the law.

The differing opinions are expected to fuel further debate as the former deputy president prepares for what could be a lengthy legal battle at the Court of Appeal, where the fate of his impeachment and future political ambitions may ultimately be determined.