Former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua’s impeachment returned to the courtroom on Thursday, as lawyers representing the Senate insisted the process was lawful and firmly grounded in the Constitution.
Appearing before the court, counsel for the Senate argued that the House acted within its constitutional mandate during the proceedings that led to Gachagua’s removal from office. They rejected attempts by petitioners to portray the Senate as a tribunal, saying its oversight role was unique and could not be judged using standards applied to courts or quasi-judicial bodies.
“The Senate handled the proceedings in accordance with the Constitution,” lawyers representing the Senate submitted.
The legal team maintained that impeachment proceedings are a special constitutional function assigned to Parliament and must be viewed within that framework. According to the Senate, the process followed standing orders and existing law throughout.
Lawyers also pushed back against claims that there were irregularities in the way the impeachment motion was introduced and debated.
“There was no illegality in procuring the impeachment motion on the 16th and 17th. The perception of a six-month timeline to discuss the motion is null and void,” the Senate argued in court.
The hearing forms part of a wider legal challenge seeking to overturn the impeachment process. Petitioners have questioned whether Parliament met the constitutional threshold on procedure, fairness and public participation.
On Wednesday, lawyers representing the National Assembly similarly defended their role in the proceedings. They told the court that the impeachment process was bound by strict constitutional timelines and could not be delayed beyond the period provided in law.
The National Assembly further argued that it conducted sufficient public participation before debating and voting on the motion. According to the lawyers, notices were published in both English and Swahili to allow Kenyans to submit their views.
About the Author
