Karua: Damages can’t replace right to fair hearing in Gachagua impeachment ruling
By Sharon Atieno, June 9, 2026People’s Liberation Party leader Martha Karua has maintained that damages cannot replace the constitutional right to a fair hearing, faulting the High Court judgement on former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua’s impeachment and arguing that the ruling failed to properly address the consequences of rights violations identified during the process.
In her statement shared on her X account on Tuesday, June 9,2026 , Karua said the court created a troubling legal contradiction after finding that Gachagua’s right to a fair hearing had been violated while still allowing the impeachment outcome to remain in force.
“The court’s pronouncement on Rigathi Gachagua’s impeachment is flawed and troubling,” Karua stated.
/X
She argued that constitutional protections are not procedural technicalities but fundamental safeguards that should guide judicial decisions, particularly in cases involving removal from high public office.
“Once the court found that the right to fair hearing had been violated, it was duty bound to nullify the impeachment proceedings,” she said.
Damages not substitute for constitutional rights
Karua further questioned the decision to award financial compensation while preserving the legal consequences flowing from the process, saying constitutional rights cannot simply be converted into monetary remedies.
“Damages cannot be a substitute to the right to fair hearing, and this pronouncement is a blot on our jurisprudence,” she stated.
Her remarks come after the High Court upheld Gachagua’s impeachment but awarded him KSh50 million in damages after finding that the Senate violated his rights under Article 50 of the Constitution.
Fears over future precedent
Former Law Society of Kenya President Faith Odhiambo also raised concerns over the ruling, warning that it could create a dangerous constitutional precedent for future impeachment cases.
“Yesterday’s High Court judgment on the impeachment of H.E. Rigathi Gachagua raises serious and legitimate questions that our constitutional jurisprudence must grapple with honestly,” Odhiambo said.
“The right to a fair hearing is not procedural decoration. It is a substantive constitutional guarantee,” she added.
Debate over ruling intensifies
The judgement continues to trigger mixed reactions from legal experts, with some supporting the court’s reasoning while others question whether constitutional violations can be separated from the outcomes of legal processes.
Gachagua’s legal team has already signalled plans to challenge the decision at the Court of Appeal, setting the stage for a fresh legal battle over due process and constitutional protections.