Written By Lisa Murimi
The High Court of Kenya firmly dismissed President William Ruto’s plea to transfer the impeachment case of former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua to the Supreme Court.
This landmark decision further cements the High Court’s role in adjudicating constitutional matters involving high-ranking government officials.
A three-judge bench comprised of Justices Eric Ogolla, Anthony Mrima, and Fridah Mugambi unanimously ruled that the High Court possesses the necessary jurisdiction to oversee the impeachment proceedings against Gachagua.
Justice Fridah Mugambi emphasized the court’s authority, declaring, “The impeachment of a deputy president is a constitutional process,” and underscored that “the authority to evaluate the procedure and merits of such cases lies squarely within the High Court’s jurisdiction.”
The ruling clarified the nature of jurisdiction over impeachment matters, affirming that original and exclusive authority does not reside with the Supreme Court. By upholding its jurisdiction, the High Court has sent a strong message regarding the constitutional framework governing the impeachment process within Kenya’s political landscape.
President Ruto’s legal team had argued that the gravity of the case warranted elevation to the Supreme Court. However, their challenge was met with a resolute response from the High Court, which asserted its constitutional mandate to hear such matters.
The court’s ruling is viewed as a crucial reinforcement of the High Court’s authority in constitutional litigation, particularly those involving the executive branch, at a time when political tensions remain high following Gachagua’s impeachment proceedings.
Legal experts and political analysts are closely monitoring the case, speculating on its potential implications for the administration of justice in Kenya and the accountability of public officials.
