Uriri Member of Parliament Mark Nyamita has taken a swipe at sections of the political class over the ongoing debate surrounding the impeachment of former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua, accusing some leaders of acting in a manner he termed as “bad manners” in the handling of constitutional and legal processes.

Speaking in with a local station on Tuesday, June 9,2026, Nyamita said that although the High Court upheld the impeachment, the matter still provides room for further legal pursuit, insisting that Gachagua is still within his rights to challenge the decision through available legal channels.

“He has another opportunity to pursue it further. Gachagua is seeking to be declared retired so that he can benefit. This reflects the bad manners we are seeing among parts of our political class, and if we are not careful, over the next 10 to 15 years, we may end up with an entire political class being funded by the taxpayer,” Nyamita said.

Legal options still open

His remarks come amid continued legal debate following the High Court ruling that upheld Gachagua’s impeachment but awarded him Ksh50 million in damages for violation of his right to a fair hearing.

Lawyer Willis Otieno has argued that the case is far from over, saying the judgement leaves unresolved constitutional questions that are likely to be tested at the appellate level.

“The judgement appears to leave a significant tension unresolved,” Otieno stated, questioning how a court could acknowledge a violation of fair hearing rights while still upholding the outcome of the impeachment process.

Debate over fairness and process

Otieno noted that fair hearing is a central constitutional requirement that goes to the validity of any legal or quasi-judicial decision, arguing that procedural violations should raise questions about the legitimacy of outcomes.

He added that many legal observers are likely to question how a process found to have constitutional defects can still produce a valid and enforceable result.

Political and legal uncertainty continues

The High Court ruled that while Gachagua’s impeachment met the constitutional threshold, there were procedural flaws, including the refusal to grant an adjournment on medical grounds.

The ruling has since triggered mixed reactions, with some leaders supporting the decision while others insist that the process was flawed and should be fully reconsidered.

As legal teams prepare for a possible appeal, the case continues to fuel debate on constitutional accountability, impeachment procedures, and the conduct of the political class in handling public office disputes.