Nominated Member of Parliament (MP) Sabina Chege has defended the Parliament’s decision on the impeachment of former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua even as High Court upheld a Ksh50 million constitutional damages award for violations of his right to a fair hearing.

Speaking in an interview on Wednesday, June 10, 2026, the lawmaker maintained that the court did not overturn the impeachment itself, but only addressed procedural issues related to fair hearing rights during the Senate proceedings.

“The court did not fault Parliament for impeaching Gachagua. The Ksh50M award was only for violation of his right to a fair hearing,” Chege said.

Her remarks came after a landmark judgment by a three-judge bench comprising Justice Eric Ogola, Justice Anthony Mrima, and Justice Freda Mugambi, which ordered the Senate of Kenya to pay Gachagua Ksh50 million in constitutional damages.

The court found that his right to a fair trial was violated during the impeachment process that led to his removal from office in October 2024.

According to the ruling, the Senate declined to grant an adjournment despite Gachagua’s absence during key proceedings, a decision the court said undermined constitutional fairness.

The judges held that while Parliament has the authority to impeach a Deputy President under Article 150 of the Constitution, it must do so in strict adherence to due process.

Chege, however, insisted that Gachagua was accorded an opportunity to defend himself during the process.

“This was not about a lack of a fair trial. Gachagua was given a chance to address the Senate and respond, and he attended,” she said.

“The issue is that he disappeared in the afternoon, and even his legal team did not know his whereabouts.”

Her comments add to the growing political interpretation of the ruling, which has been viewed by different camps as either a vindication of constitutional rights or a procedural correction that does not invalidate the impeachment outcome.

In its judgment, the High Court clarified that the Ksh50 million award was intended as a constitutional remedy rather than a reversal of the Senate’s decision.

“The compensation is meant to vindicate the Constitution, restore the dignity of the affected party, and deter future violations,” the bench stated.

The judges further directed Parliament to develop a clear statutory framework governing the impeachment of a Deputy President, noting that the current legal structure under Article 150 requires additional clarity to ensure fairness and consistency in future proceedings.

On matters of pension and emoluments, the court declined to issue a determination, allowing Gachagua to pursue the issue in an appropriate legal forum. Each party was also directed to bear its own costs due to the public interest nature of the case.

While supporters of Gachagua have hailed the decision as a partial victory, critics of his administration argue that the Senate acted within its mandate.