01/05/2026
LEGAL LESSONS FROM KENYA
How Gachagua’s Case Could Change Future Impeachments in Kenya.
Understanding the legal issues Gachagua’s lawyers are raising in court👇👇
1. Constitutional threshold Test👉was the conduct really “gross”?
This is one of the hardest legal questions court will deal with.
Kenyan courts have repeatedly said the Constitution does not give a neat dictionary definition of “gross misconduct.”
The courts have said the meaning depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. In county impeachment cases, the High Court noted that the test is not mechanical and that “gross” depends on seriousness, gravity, and the constitutional context.
👉👉 So not every error, insult, political disagreement, or controversial statement becomes “gross misconduct.”
👉👉 The conduct must be serious enough to justify the extreme constitutional remedy of removal from office.
2. The Senate committee option.
Under Article 145(3)(b) as applied to the Deputy President through Article 150(2), the Senate "MAY", by resolution, appoint a special committee of eleven Senators to investigate the matter.
👉The word used is “may”, not “must or shall”
👉👉 That means the legal fight on this point is not simply “committee was mandatory". Because the use of may suggest it is not an obligation. But sometimes in law "may" can mean "must" but I don't think it applys here.
👉👉 The real argument would have to be that, in the circumstances of this case, proceeding without a committee caused unfairness or violated the Constitution.
3. Must the charges be precise?
👉A recurring principle in impeachment litigation is that charges must be framed with sufficient precision so that the office holder knows what exactly he is accused of and can defend himself properly.
👉Courts in past impeachment disputes have criticized vague charges that do not clearly identify the constitutional or legal violations alleged.
But remember only charges 5 and 6 are contested it means 4 could stand this test. The two are which his lawyers say were too broad, repetitive, or insufficiently particularized.
4. What if only one allegation survives?
👉 Then the impeachment can still stand.
If even one constitutionally valid ground is found to have been properly established, and the process was fair, the removal may still be upheld.
👉The court does not need to save or destroy every allegation equally. It may ask whether there was at least one sustainable basis for removal. This is consistent with how impeachment grounds are treated in Kenyan constitutional practice.
5. Multiplicity of charges
👉 This means repeating the same conduct under several different heads of accusation in a way that may unfairly burden the accused person.
👉 Gachagua’s team argues that some grounds were simply repetitions of earlier ones and that this offended the fairness required by Article 50.
👉👉 The real legal issue the court will likely ask is
whether there were truly distinct grounds or was the same factual complaint being recycled to make the case look heavier than it really was
6. Was the impeachment vote done during working hours?
👉👉 But legally, timing alone is usually not the main issue. The real issue is whether Parliament was sitting lawfully under its calendar, standing orders, and constitutional timelines.
👉👉 A vote taken late is not automatically invalid unless it can be shown that the House acted outside its lawful sitting authority or in a way that caused unfairness.
The Senate had specifically resolved to hold the necessary impeachment sittings under its Standing Orders.
So the Court has key issues to determine;
👉 How serious must “gross misconduct” be?
👉 How precise must impeachment charges be?
👉 How much fairness must Parliament give in a fast political process?
👉 And once impeachment happens, what remedy is realistically left?
I had address other issues in my previous post.
Do you have an example of a gross misconduct.
Copied from Luvisa legal
