In its determination, the court found that the two Speakers acted within the scope of their constitutional and procedural responsibilities and did not influence the outcome of the impeachment process.
The judges noted that their roles were largely facilitative, involving the management and coordination of parliamentary proceedings rather than the determination of the charges against Gachagua.
The court rejected claims that the Speakers had demonstrated prejudice or acted with a predetermined intention to remove the former Deputy President from office.
According to the judges, the evidence presented before the court did not establish any conduct that would amount to bias or unfair treatment during the impeachment process.
The ruling emphasized that the Speakers were responsible for ensuring that parliamentary procedures were followed and that debates and voting processes were conducted in accordance with the Constitution, relevant statutes, and parliamentary Standing Orders.
Their involvement, the court said, was administrative and procedural in nature.
The judges further observed that the impeachment proceedings were primarily driven by members of Parliament and senators who exercised their constitutional mandate to deliberate and vote on the motion.
As such, responsibility for the final outcome rested with the legislative bodies rather than with the presiding officers.
The decision marks a significant development in the legal challenges arising from Gachagua’s impeachment, which has generated widespread public and political interest.
The court's findings are expected to shape future discussions on the role of parliamentary leadership in impeachment proceedings and the extent to which courts can scrutinize actions taken within legislative chambers.
The case remains one of the most closely watched constitutional matters in recent years, given its implications for governance, accountability, and the separation of powers in Kenya.
Tags
Kenya