Matiang’i faults Gachagua impeachment ruling, says court contradicted itself
By Emmanuel Rono, June 9, 2026Former Interior Cabinet Secretary Fred Matiang’i has criticised the High Court ruling in the impeachment case of former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua, saying the judgment contains fundamental contradictions.
In a statement on Tuesday, June 9, 2026, Matiang’i said the court’s finding that Gachagua’s constitutional rights were violated is inconsistent with its decision to still uphold the outcome of what he described as a flawed process.

“The ruling in Hon. Gachagua’s impeachment case makes no sense to me. If the court finds that his constitutional rights were infringed, it cannot, in the same breath, allow the outcome of that flawed process to stand,” Matiang’i said.
Gachagua’s case
Matiang’i’s remarks add to the growing political debate following the court decision on Gachagua, who suffered a blow after the High Court upheld his impeachment from office.
A landmark judgement delivered by Justices Eric Ogola, Freda Mugambi, and Antony Murima on Monday, June 8, 2026, found that the Members of Parliament and Senators followed the due process for the removal of Gachagua from office.

“The prayers seeking to quash Gachagua’s impeachment are hereby declined,” the bench ruled.
The bench ruled that Gachagua’s rights were violated when the Senate refused to adjourn the proceedings after he was taken ill and instead proceeded with the impeachment process.
“We find that His Excellency Gachagua’s rights were infringed when the Senate refused to allow an adjournment.” This violation constitutes both a vindication of his rights and a recognition of the constitutional infirmity in the process, but does not undo the impeachment itself, given the finality of Article 145(7) and the constitutional absurdity that would arise from dual incumbency,” the court ruled.
Gachagua’s appeal to High Court
The former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua, while speaking during a press conference in Nairobi on Tuesday, 9 June 2026, said he respects the judiciary but strongly disagrees with its findings on both law and fact.

“We stand here today with tremendous respect to the judiciary of our country,” he said. “While we respect the ruling of the High Court, we totally and fundamentally disagree with the interpretation of the law and application of facts.”
He added that the court had ignored key constitutional protections, especially the right to a fair hearing.