Nominated Senator Karen Nyamu has defended the High Court’s decision to award former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua Ksh50 million for violation of his constitutional rights while upholding his impeachment, describing the ruling as an example of judicial restraint and constitutional pragmatism.
In a statement posted on her Facebook account on June 8, 2026, Nyamu argued that the court struck a balance between addressing procedural violations and safeguarding constitutional stability.
“The High Court’s decision to award damages rather than annul Riggy G’s impeachment is an application of constitutional pragmatism and judicial restraint,” Nyamu stated.
She explained that the judges considered the doctrine of fait accompli—a situation that has already occurred and cannot be reversed without causing a constitutional crisis.
“By declining to quash the impeachment, the three-judge bench recognized that once a new Deputy President is lawfully sworn into office, the constitutional framework limits the judiciary’s power to reverse a completed political process that would create an unacceptable institutional vacuum,” she said.
According to the senator, the ruling sends “a clear message that while procedural compliance is a must, the stability of the constitutional order remains paramount.”
Nyamu further revealed that the Senate would challenge the Ksh50 million compensation awarded to Gachagua, saying the institution lacks the necessary budget allocation.
“Meanwhile, Senate is appealing this decision because we simply do not have the unallocated budget for a KSh50 million award,” she added.
The three-judge bench comprising Justices Erick Ogolla, Anthony Mrima and Fred Mugambi upheld Gachagua’s impeachment by the Senate after finding that the constitutional threshold for his removal from office had been met.
However, the judges ruled that senators violated the former Deputy President’s right to a fair hearing after rejecting his request for an adjournment on medical grounds.
The court said the Ksh50 million award was intended to vindicate constitutional rights, restore dignity and deter future procedural violations by public institutions.
