Lawyer Nelson Havi has said that former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua remains eligible to contest for the presidency, arguing that the High Court’s decision relating to his impeachment does not immediately bar him from political office, even if he does not appeal the ruling.

Hours after a three-judge bench of the High Court delivered a definitive blow to Gachagua by upholding his historic impeachment, a fierce constitutional debate has ignited in the country over his long-term eligibility for public office.

While government allies celebrated the verdict as an absolute confirmation of the legislature’s sovereign powers, prominent legal minds quickly stepped forward to challenge the conventional political narrative that the ruling permanently disqualifies the former second-in-command from future ballots.

Havi, the former president of the Law Society of Kenya, has asserted that Gachagua remains legally eligible to run for the presidency, maintaining that his path to a future political bid is secure whether or not he ultimately appeals the decision of the High Court that stayed his impeachment.

Speaking during a high-profile television interview on Wednesday night, June 10, 2026, Havi delivered an aggressive critique of the judicial bench’s reasoning, arguing that underlying procedural missteps still shield the former deputy president under statutory electoral laws.

“With this nebulous and ridiculous decision by the three [the three High Court judges], which confirms that there was a violation of Rigathi Gachagua’s rights, the logical conclusion is that Rigathi Gachagua even as we speak right now may run of he wants to do whether or not he appeals or he does not appeal because there was a violation of his rights,” Havi argued.

The legal technicalities behind Havi’s argument rest on the complex interplay between parliamentary procedure, constitutional benchmarks, and the absolute finality of judicial review.

According to his analysis, the flaws exposed during the legislative trial cannot be completely wiped away by the bench’s closing orders, granting Gachagua an immediate right to seek office regardless of an ongoing appellate trajectory.

Under Kenyan law, an impeachment typically carries a lifetime ban on holding public office.

However, Havi emphasised that the structural clock governing political disqualification does not stop working until the entire judicial architecture has reviewed the matter.

The lawyer noted that the statutory mechanism provides an extended window for the deposed leader, preserving his standing while the case scales the nation’s appellate courts.

“In addition to that, until such a time that he has exhausted his last avenue of redress, which is the Supreme Court, between now and the decision of the Supreme Court, whenever it would be – he is eligible [to vie],” Havi said.

As political factions process the ripple effects of the 350-page judgment, the debate triggered by Havi suggests that rather than concluding a dark chapter in Kenya’s political landscape, the High Court’s ruling has merely set the stage for a prolonged legal and electoral war that could stretch all the way to the 2027 general elections.