By James Murimi - Seasoned journalist and a media consultant in Kenya.
Kenya, 12 June 2026 - Former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua has found an unusual way to explain why he believes the High Court got it wrong.
He tells the story of a man whose wife is forcefully taken away after his rivals allegedly conspire with police and judicial officers to have him imprisoned through an unfair process.
While serving his sentence, the man challenges his imprisonment in court. The judge agrees that his rights were violated and that he was denied a fair hearing.
But instead of setting him free, the judge rules that releasing him would create confusion because another man has already married his wife. The prisoner is then offered compensation and ordered to remain behind bars.
To Gachagua, that is precisely what happened in his impeachment case.
Whether one agrees with the former Deputy President or not, the analogy captures the constitutional dilemma that has emerged from one of Kenya's most consequential court decisions in recent years.
The three-judge bench that heard Gachagua's petition reached a conclusion that has left both legal scholars and ordinary Kenyans grappling with difficult questions.
The court found that Gachagua's constitutional rights to a fair hearing and fair administrative action were violated during Senate proceedings.
Yet it declined to overturn his impeachment and instead awarded him KSh 50 million in constitutional damages.
The verdict settled the immediate political question of who occupies the office of Deputy President.
However, it simultaneously opened a far bigger debate about the meaning of constitutional justice.
At the heart of that debate is a simple question: Can a process found to have violated fundamental constitutional rights still produce a valid and enforceable outcome?
For many constitutional purists, the answer is no.
The right to a fair hearing occupies a unique place in Kenya's constitutional architecture. It is not merely another procedural requirement that institutions can overlook and later correct through compensation. It is among the most jealously guarded rights in the Constitution because it protects citizens against arbitrary exercise of power.
The logic behind this protection is straightforward. A fair outcome cannot emerge from an unfair process. Once due process is compromised, the legitimacy of the final decision becomes questionable.
This is the argument advanced not only by Gachagua but also by former Chief Justice David Maraga, who publicly questioned the reasoning adopted by the court.
According to Maraga, once the judges found that Gachagua had been denied a fair hearing, the natural legal consequence should have been the nullification of the impeachment proceedings.
His concern extends beyond the fate of one politician. It touches on the broader issue of constitutional accountability. If institutions can violate rights and still retain the benefits of their actions, what incentive exists for strict compliance with constitutional safeguards in future proceedings?
That concern should not be dismissed lightly.
The implications of the ruling reach far beyond the political rivalry between President William Ruto and his former deputy. The precedent established by this case could influence future impeachment proceedings, disciplinary hearings, administrative actions and even ordinary court cases.
Supporters of the judgment, however, see matters differently.
More from Kenya
They argue that constitutional adjudication is rarely black and white. Courts must often balance competing interests, including the need to preserve institutional stability and continuity in government.
In this case, overturning the impeachment would have raised difficult questions about the status of Deputy President Kithure Kindiki and potentially plunged the country into a fresh constitutional crisis.
The judges may therefore have opted for what they considered a pragmatic solution - acknowledging the violation, punishing the wrongdoing through damages and warning future institutions against similar conduct, while preserving the broader constitutional order.
Yet pragmatism and constitutional principle do not always sit comfortably together.
That is why the judgment has generated reactions across the political divide. Even leaders who supported the impeachment have questioned aspects of the ruling.
Siaya Senator Oburu Odinga wondered how the Senate could be found liable for violating rights and ordered to pay damages while simultaneously being deemed to have acted constitutionally.
The apparent contradiction has become the defining feature of the judgment.
Perhaps that is why the Gachagua case is likely to outlive the political events that produced it.
Long after the personalities involved leave public office, law students, judges and constitutional scholars will continue debating whether the court struck the correct balance between justice and stability.
The coming appeals may provide clearer answers.
But for now, Kenya finds itself confronting a question that lies at the very heart of constitutional governance.
If a citizen's rights are violated during a process, is compensation enough, or must the outcome itself fall?
The answer will determine not only how history judges the Gachagua impeachment but also how future generations interpret the promise of the Constitution.
The writer is a seasoned journalist and a media consultant in Kenya.
The opinions expressed in this article are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect the views of Dawan Africa.
Opinion - The Wife, the Prisoner and the Constitution: Why the Gachagua Verdict Has Sparked National Debate
The court found that Gachagua's constitutional rights to a fair hearing and fair administrative action were violated during Senate proceedings.