Africa NewsSlider

Kenya's Supreme Court upholds the removal of Regathi Gatchagwa and awards him $50 million in compensation.

A landmark ruling ends the controversy surrounding the impeachment of the former vice president.

Kenya’s Supreme Court upheld the Senate’s decision to remove former Vice President Regathi Gatchagwa, rejecting a series of consolidated petitions challenging the constitutionality of his removal.

The ruling issued by a three-judge panel is considered one of the most prominent political and legal rulings in the country in recent years, due to its implications for the Kenyan political landscape and the future of the vice-presidential position.

The ruling was issued on Monday, June 8, 2026, by a panel of judges including Eric Ogola, Anthony Mrema, and Judge Farida Mugambi, in which the court concluded that Parliament and the Senate acted within the constitutional and legal framework during the impeachment proceedings.

كينيا
Kenya

Parliament and Senate procedures 

The court confirmed that the impeachment process met the constitutional requirements, including the requirement of public participation in the legislative process.

It also rejected claims that Parliament lacked the legal authority to consider impeachment proceedings due to the non-full application of the two-thirds gender representation principle.

The court held that the issue of gender representation does not affect the constitutional mandate granted to Parliament to consider impeachment cases and make decisions related to them, stressing that the internal regulations on which the impeachment procedures were based were sound and in accordance with the constitution.

The court added that the National Assembly and the Senate complied with the required legal procedures, and that the impeachment process took place in accordance with the constitutional frameworks in force in the country.

He rejected allegations of bias against members of parliament and senators.

The judges also rejected allegations of bias made by the petitioners against the presidents of the National Assembly and the Senate, as well as the members of parliament and senators involved in the impeachment proceedings.

Judge Eric Ojola emphasized that party affiliation or the expression of political views does not in itself constitute evidence of constitutional bias, nor does it automatically invalidate impeachment proceedings.

The court stressed that the appellants did not provide sufficient evidence to prove the existence of bias or political targeting that affected the integrity of the parliamentary process.

Kethori Kendike's appointment as Vice President has been confirmed

In another part of the ruling, the court upheld the appointment of Kethori Kindiki as Vice President of the Republic, rejecting arguments based on the absence of commissioners from the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission during the succession process.

The court found that the procedures that led to the appointment were carried out legally, thus giving full legitimacy to Kendike's continued tenure as vice president.

The court concluded that Regathi Gatchagua's right to a fair trial was violated during the Senate hearings, noting procedural irregularities that affected his ability to fully present his defense.

The court explained that the Senate's refusal to postpone the impeachment hearings despite Gatchagua's absence deprived him of a sufficient opportunity to present his case, which constitutes a violation of his constitutional rights.

Accordingly, the court ruled that Gatchagua should be awarded financial compensation of 50 million Kenyan shillings, to be paid by the Senate, while confirming that this violation was not sufficient to overturn the outcome of the impeachment process or to reinstate Gatchagua to his position.

The lockdown remains in effect despite compensation.

The ruling means that Regathi Gatchagwa will remain removed from his position as vice president, despite receiving financial compensation for the violation of his right to a fair trial. The court has thus resolved one of Kenya's most contentious political cases, affirming the legality of his removal while acknowledging procedural irregularities.

Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back to top button