NAIROBI, Kenya, Aug 17 – Former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua has appealed the High Court decision upholding his impeachment, arguing that the three-judge bench erred in finding that his removal from office could not be reversed despite violations of his constitutional rights.

📻 Breaking It Down

In the appeal filed at the Court of Appeal, Gachagua says he is dissatisfied with the judgment and decree issued by Justices E.O. Ogola, A. Mrima and Dr F. Mugambi in June.

He argues that the High Court erred in law by holding that the Senate’s decision to impeach him was final and beyond judicial review, despite the same court finding that aspects of the process violated his rights to a fair hearing and fair administrative action.

Gachagua maintains that the right to a fair trial is an absolute constitutional guarantee that cannot be sacrificed on the basis of constitutional timelines or political considerations.

📌 What You Need to Know

“No act in violation of the Constitution is outside the reach of the Courts,” he says in the court papers.

The former Deputy President is also challenging the High Court’s interpretation of Article 145 of the Constitution, which sets out the procedure for the removal of a Deputy President from office.

He argues that while the High Court correctly found that the investigatory phase of an impeachment is mandatory, it subsequently arrived at what he describes as an “absurd, impracticable, illogical or artificial conclusion” in its application of Article 145.

Gachagua has also faulted the handling of public participation by both the National Assembly and the Senate, arguing that the process failed to meet the constitutional threshold for meaningful public participation.

He cites the Supreme Court’s decision in British American Tobacco Kenya PLC v Cabinet Secretary for the Ministry of Health and Others , arguing that public participation must be meaningful both qualitatively and quantitatively.

The former Deputy President is further challenging the constitutionality of National Assembly Standing Order 64(2), arguing that the timelines prescribed under the provision undermined meaningful public participation as well as his right to a fair hearing.

📰 Source: Capital FM Kenya