High Court finds Parliament met public participation threshold in Gachagua ouster

The High Court has affirmed that Parliament conducted a lawful and constitutionally compliant public participation process during the impeachment of former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua, finding that the exercise gave Kenyans a genuine opportunity to express their views before lawmakers made a decision.

In a judgment delivered by a three-judge bench on Monday, the court held that the National Assembly's public participation exercise met the required constitutional standards despite concerns raised about logistical challenges experienced in some areas.

The judges observed that large national exercises are often faced with operational difficulties, but such challenges alone cannot invalidate an entire process that was otherwise conducted within the law.

“It is to be expected, even accepting as we do that logistical and operational challenges may have a reason in certain isolated cases, which is not an uncommon occurrence in any large-scale nationally coordinated exercise conducted under time pressure, such localized deficiencies would not invalidate the entire process,” the court held.

According to the bench, the evidence presented before the court showed that the exercise was conducted in an open, accessible and genuine manner, allowing members of the public to participate.

“The evidence before this court shows that the door was opened widely, accessibly, and in good faith,” the bench stated.

The court also dismissed arguments that the public participation exercise was defective because Gachagua’s response to the impeachment charges was not made available to the public during the participation period.

The judges said the absence of the response document during that window did not automatically render the process unconstitutional or inadequate.

“The fact that His Excellency Gachagua’s response to the charges was not available to the public during the window does not without more render the exercise deficient,” the judgment read.

The bench further explained that public participation in an impeachment process serves a different purpose from the formal hearing conducted before lawmakers.

“The purpose of public participation in the impeachment process is substantively and functionally distinct from the adversarial hearing to which the respondent is entitled. It was not and was never intended to be a mini trial of the charges.”

The judges emphasized that the Constitution grants the National Assembly and the Senate the authority to make final decisions on impeachment matters as elected institutions acting on behalf of the people.

“The Constitution vests the final decision-making authority in the National Assembly and the Senate, both of which are representative bodies exercising a delegated mandate from the people,” the court stated.

On whether Parliament complied with previous court directives requiring constituency-level engagement, the bench found that lawmakers had taken clear and timely steps to implement those orders.

According to the judgment, Parliament organized structured public hearings across the country and collected public views through constituency offices as directed.

The court also rejected claims that the public participation exercise was merely a formality with no real intention of gathering public opinion. The judges pointed to documentary evidence, constituency reports and other materials presented by the National Assembly as proof that the process was genuine.

In addition, the bench dismissed allegations that there were irregularities in the participation figures submitted by Parliament, finding that the data was mathematically consistent and fell within acceptable limits.

The ruling strengthens Parliament’s position that the public participation process undertaken during Gachagua’s impeachment complied with constitutional requirements and provided citizens with a meaningful opportunity to contribute to the proceedings.