Law Society of Kenya (LSK) President Charles Kanjama has identified ambiguities in the High Court ruling on the impeachment of former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua, particularly on his eligibility to contest future elective office.

In an interview on June 8, 2026, a day after the judgment, Kanjama said the court did not clearly address the consequences of the impeachment. “You see that’s a matter which us lawyers will give our interpretations,” he said.

“But the court was not clear on it. It could have been very clear by making a declaration that the outcome of the infringement of the impeachment will not have any consequence. That is found in Article 99 paragraph 3, which means that when somebody has been removed from office on account of abuse of office or violation of the Constitution. They are not allowed to run again, but the court did not do so.”

Legal interpretation of Article 50 and Article 99(3)

Kanjama argued that the court’s finding that Gachagua’s Article 50 right to fair hearing was violated affects the legal consequences of the impeachment under Article 99(3). He said this raises questions on whether the disqualification from future elective office can stand.

Kanjama said that because the court found a violation of the right to a fair hearing, the “fruits of the impeachment cannot all be sustained.”

He noted that while the outcome of appointing a new deputy president has been maintained, the other consequences of the impeachment, including the restriction on Gachagua from running for office again, cannot stand. He added that allowing such consequences would effectively overturn the impeachment, describing the situation as one that has created confusion.

“So for me, my interpretation is that because the court has found that there’s been a violation of the right to fair hearing then of necessity the fruits of the impeachment cannot all be sustained,” he said.

“Yeah, the finality in terms of bringing in a new deputy president has been sustained but the other fruits of impeachment which is to stop the deputy president from running again cannot be sustained because with that essentially then overturn the impeachment again. So that that is a confusion now.”

Court ruling, reactions and expected appeal process

Kanjama described the judgment as “Solomonic,” noting that it attempts to balance competing interests while leaving legal uncertainty.

“The court was trying to adopt an approach of being Solomonic and try to preserve the baby and not give a one party everything they’re asking for. But the outcome is fairly confusing to be honest, and it requires a lot of other analysis and clarification in the days ahead,” he said.

The High Court on June 8, 2026, upheld Gachagua’s impeachment but awarded him Ksh50 million in damages for violation of fair hearing rights. It also affirmed President William Ruto’s nomination of Prof. Kithure Kindiki as Deputy President.

DCP Deputy Leader Cleophas Malala said he was “troubled and perturbed by the decision,” while Gachagua’s lawyer Njeri Maina described it as “gravely disappointing” and confirmed plans to appeal. Legal analysts expect the Court of Appeal to provide further clarity on the constitutional questions arising from the case.