The impeachment case of former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua points to a glaring inconsistency in our laws, especially when it comes to dealing with weighty, emotive political issues.
Our constitution has not been properly tested on such matters, and the recent ruling by the three-judge bench of the High Court, though anticipated to generate strong comments, has elicited so much heat due to the way it speaks from both sides of the mouth.
It gave orders that, though enforceable, fly in the face of the constitution. A fundamental violation such as denial of the right to a fair hearing cannot be remedied by constitutional damage alone without the invalidation of the underlying process.
To save time and agony, such contradictory findings are, in other jurisdictions, dealt with by the same bench through procedural mechanisms such as filing the motion seeking clarifications on the inconsistencies. In our case, the parties have decided to escalate the matter to the appellate court for review.
However, it's my considered view that this case will take a life of its own as the parties seek to overturn major findings that go to the cranny of the petition(s). This calls for the interpretation of the constitution in a manner that gives meaning to what its makers wanted to achieve in the first place.
For example, in a case where a party, knowing that the law dictates that certain things must be done in a certain manner, eg, physical presence, decides to play mischief using the law as a shield.
Better still, how does it handle a provision that, upon impeachment by the Senate, the president or in this case the deputy, immediately ceases to hold office against the constitutional dictate vouching for the right of review of such matters by the courts?
