The Senate has announced plans to challenge a recent High Court decision that awarded former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua KSh 50 million in compensation for the violation of his right to a fair trial during the impeachment process that led to his removal from office.
The move has sparked renewed debate over the relationship between the Judiciary and Parliament, with senators strongly defending the Senate’s conduct during the historic proceedings.
Speaking in the Senate on Tuesday afternoon, Senate Speaker Amason Kingi criticized the High Court’s finding that Gachagua’s right to a fair hearing had been infringed.
Kingi maintained that the court had reached an incorrect conclusion and confirmed that the Senate would include the matter among the key grounds of its appeal.
According to Kingi, the Senate acted within its constitutional mandate while handling the impeachment proceedings.
He argued that the circumstances facing the House at the time did not justify halting the trial. He noted that the Senate had already granted an adjournment and that there was no evidence before members that would have warranted stopping the process.
In his view, no court placed in a similar situation would have found sufficient grounds to suspend the proceedings.
Several senators supported the Speaker’s position and accused the Judiciary of interfering with Parliament’s constitutional role.
They argued that the Senate has the authority to conduct impeachment trials independently and that courts should not second-guess decisions made by lawmakers during such proceedings.
Kakamega Senator Bonny Khalwale said there appeared to be a growing tendency by some individuals to undermine other institutions of government regardless of their position or status. He stressed the need for all arms of government to respect each other’s constitutional responsibilities.
Homa Bay Senator Moses Kajwang also weighed in on the matter, arguing that decision-making bodies such as juries are not always required to provide detailed explanations for their conclusions.
He suggested that the Senate’s role should be viewed in a similar context when carrying out its constitutional duties.
Tana River Senator Danson Mungatana strongly disagreed with the court’s interpretation of the events surrounding the impeachment.
He argued that legal proceedings can continue even when an accused person is absent and maintained that the judges had erred in their assessment of the situation.
The senators further insisted that Gachagua’s whereabouts were unclear at the time the trial was proceeding. Some lawmakers recalled that even members of his legal team had indicated they did not know where he was during a critical stage of the process.
Siaya Senator Oburu Oginga told the House that senators heard Gachagua’s lawyer acknowledge that he was unaware of his client’s location.
Despite the strong criticism directed at the court ruling, some senators questioned aspects of the judgment itself. Kitui Senator Enock Wambua expressed concern over what he described as a contradiction in the ruling.
He wondered how a process deemed flawed by the court could still produce an outcome that remains legally valid. His remarks highlighted a legal and constitutional question that has continued to attract public attention since the judgment was delivered.
The High Court ruling and the Senate’s response have once again brought into focus the delicate balance between the Judiciary and Parliament.
The case is expected to continue shaping discussions on the limits of judicial oversight and the independence of Parliament when exercising its constitutional powers. The outcome of the appeal could have significant implications for how future impeachment proceedings are conducted and reviewed in Kenya.
