DAP-K reacts to Gachagua impeachment ruling, terms it biased and skewed
By Faith Lagat, June 9, 2026The Democratic Action Party of Kenya (DAP-K), led by Eugene Wamalwa, has criticised the High Court ruling on the impeachment of former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua, describing it as “biased, unfair and skewed” following the court’s decision that upheld his removal from office while awarding him Ksh50 million in constitutional damages.
In a statement posted on its official X account on June 8, 2026, the party expressed concern over what it termed ‘inconsistencies in the judgement’.
“That your rights to fair hearing were violated and because of that you are awarded Ksh50M as a vuta machozi package, but the basis of the violation is not quashed. Clearly biased, unfair and skewed ruling against H.E Rigathi Gachagua,” the post read.
The remarks reflect growing political and legal debate following the High Court’s decision delivered by a three-judge bench comprising Justices Erick Ogolla, Anthony Mrima, and Fred Mugambi.
Court findings on impeachment and fair hearing
At the same time, the judges found that senators violated his right to a fair hearing after failing to grant an adjournment request on medical grounds. The court awarded him Ksh50 million in constitutional damages payable by the Senate.
The judges said the award was intended to vindicate constitutional rights, restore dignity, and deter future procedural violations.
The ruling also validated the nomination of Prof. Kithure Kindiki as Deputy President following Gachagua’s removal.
Political and legal reactions to the ruling
Democracy for Citizens Party (DCP) Deputy Leader Cleophas Malala also criticised the decision, questioning how an impeachment process found to be procedurally flawed could still produce a valid outcome.
He argued that the right to a fair hearing under Article 50 is fundamental and cannot be remedied through monetary compensation alone.
Legal practitioner Evans Ndong’ also described the ruling as a “butchering of the Constitution,” arguing that once a violation of fair hearing is established, the entire impeachment process should be nullified.
Law Society of Kenya Council member Charles Kanjama noted that the judgement left several constitutional questions unresolved, particularly on the interpretation of Article 99(3), which governs eligibility for future elective office.
He said the matter is likely to proceed to the Court of Appeal for further clarification.
Appeal plans and wider constitutional debate
Gachagua, who followed the ruling from his home alongside his wife Reverend Dorcas Gachagua and opposition leaders including Kalonzo Musyoka and Eugene Wamalwa, is expected to challenge the decision at the Court of Appeal.
His legal team has raised concerns over both the validity of the impeachment and the scope of remedies awarded by the court.
The ruling has triggered wider debate among political leaders and legal experts on the balance between parliamentary impeachment powers and constitutional safeguards on fair administrative action.
Analysts say the case raises important questions on how courts should address violations of rights within completed political processes, as attention now shifts to the expected appellate proceedings.