President of the Law Society of Kenya (LSK) Charles Kanjama has raised concerns over the High Court decision upholding the impeachment of former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua, delivered on Monday, June 8, 2026, by a three-judge bench comprising Justices Eric Ogola, Freda Mugambi and Antony Murima.

Speaking during an interview on June 8, 2026, Kanjama questioned what he termed an inconsistency in the court’s reasoning after it found that Gachagua’s right to a fair hearing was substantively violated but declined to nullify the impeachment outcome.

“Normally, when a right to fair trial or fair hearing is infringed, you invalidate the hearing. You set it aside. Either you order a new trial or sometimes you just set it aside and it dies that way,” he said.

He further explained that the dispute arises from the interpretation of the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction under Article 165 of the Constitution in relation to impeachment proceedings governed by Article 145.

According to him, the court’s position creates a tension between the requirement to safeguard fair hearing rights and the constitutional provision that treats impeachment as a final parliamentary process.

He noted that the earlier interim proceedings had suggested that the court retained the ability to intervene after impeachment, but the final judgment adopted a different interpretation, leading to questions on the scope of judicial remedies available once Parliament concludes impeachment proceedings.

Court upholds impeachment but awards damages

The High Court ruled that Parliament met the constitutional threshold under Article 145 in the impeachment of Gachagua. However, it also held that the Senate violated his right to a fair hearing after declining an adjournment on medical grounds.

The court stated that impeachment proceedings are final, limiting its ability to overturn the decision, and instead awarded Ksh50 million in constitutional damages payable by the Senate.

Gachagua to pursue appeal after ruling

Gachagua did not attend the proceedings in court, opting to follow the ruling from home alongside his wife, Reverend Dorcas Rigathi, and opposition leaders Kalonzo Musyoka and Eugene Wamalwa.

His lawyer, Kirinyaga Woman Representative Njeri Maina, said attendance was not mandatory, stating: “Our client was watching from home with his family. It is not mandatory that the client attend,”.

She added that Gachagua remains committed to peace and will pursue an appeal at the Court of Appeal. On June 7, Gachagua urged supporters at PCEA Muteero Church in Karen to remain calm regardless of the outcome.

The judgment has cleared the way for further litigation at the Court of Appeal where the issues of a fair hearing and the scope of judicial review in impeachment proceedings are expected to be examined.

Further directions from the Court of Appeal are expected to clarify procedural standards and the scope of remedies available in constitutional petitions arising from impeachment proceedings in Kenya.