The ruling delivered on Monday by the three-judge bench in the impeachment case filed by former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua has generated intense public debate.
While legal disputes of such constitutional significance are often complex, the reaction from many Kenyans suggests that the judgment has left more questions than answers.
Courts exist not only to determine disputes but also to communicate justice. A judgment may be legally sound, meticulously researched and rich in precedent, yet still fail in one important respect if the public cannot clearly understand its conclusions and implications.
In matters involving constitutional offices and national governance, clarity is especially critical.
Judges write primarily for the parties before them, but they also write for citizens whose lives are affected by the law.
When rulings appear overly technical, internally inconsistent, or difficult to interpret, they create room for competing narratives, political spin, and unnecessary confusion. This undermines public confidence in the administration of justice.
The Judiciary has earned respect for its independence and courage in handling politically sensitive cases.
That credibility should be reinforced by judgments that are concise, direct, and accessible.
A clear statement of the issues, findings, reasoning and orders should leave little room for doubt.
Justice must not only be done; it must also be understood. In a
constitutional democracy, clarity is not a luxury—it is a judicial duty.
