Rigathi Gachagua Appeals High Court Decision on Impeachment

• Rigathi Gachagua appeals High Court decision upholding his impeachment
• Gachagua argues constitutional rights were violated during impeachment process
• Court of Appeal to review interpretation of Article 145 and public participation
• Former Deputy President seeks declaration that Senate resolution was unconstitutional
• Gachagua also challenges constitutionality of National Assembly Standing Order 64(2)

Rigathi Gachagua, the former Deputy President of Kenya, has taken his fight against impeachment to the Court of Appeal. In a bid to overturn the High Court decision upholding his removal from office, Gachagua argues that the three-judge bench erred in finding that his removal could not be reversed despite constitutional rights violations. The appeal centers on several key issues, including the interpretation of Article 145 of the Constitution and the handling of public participation during the impeachment process. At stake is the constitutionality of National Assembly Standing Order 64(2) and the appointment of Prof Kithure Kindiki as Deputy President. Gachagua's lawyers contend that the High Court erred in its application of constitutional timelines and political considerations, which they argue compromised his right to a fair trial.

The High Court decision upholding Gachagua's impeachment has been criticized for its handling of public participation. The court found that aspects of the process violated Gachagua's rights to a fair hearing and fair administrative action, but ultimately ruled that the Senate's decision was final and beyond judicial review. However, Gachagua argues that this conclusion is 'absurd, impracticable, illogical or artificial' given the High Court's earlier finding on the mandatory nature of the investigatory phase in an impeachment process. The former Deputy President also challenges the constitutionality of National Assembly Standing Order 64(2) and its impact on public participation.

Gachagua's appeal raises significant constitutional implications, including the interpretation of Article 145 and the handling of public participation. The former Deputy President argues that the High Court's remedies, including a KSh50 million award for constitutional damages, were inadequate to vindicate the Constitution and restore his dignity. He also faults the court for failing to determine whether a Deputy President removed through an unconstitutional impeachment process would be entitled to retirement benefits. Gachagua is seeking a declaration from the Court of Appeal that the Senate resolution removing him from office was 'unconstitutional, null and void'.

Lawyers advising clients on the implications of this appeal should watch for potential changes to the impeachment process and the constitutionality of National Assembly Standing Orders, which could impact future cases. Compliance officers should also be aware of the Court of Appeal's review of the High Court's remedies, including constitutional damages.

Source: Original reporting via Capital FM Kenya