Mtetezi™©2026

Humanitarian | Career Missionary. A Mighty Fortress Is Our God!! Views Own, Retweets ≠ endorsement!

Founder & CEO @JiraniMercyKE

[Mtetezi™©2026 @PatrickMuteti]

Agano Langu Nitalifanya Imara Kati ya Mimi na Wewe, na Uzao Wako Baada Yako, na Vizazi Vyao, Kuwa Agano La Milele, Kwamba Nitakuwa Mungu Kwako na Kwa Uzao Wako Baada Yako [Mwanzo 17:7] https://t.co/hg16D1Z09P via @YouTube

[Rapid Response 47 @RapidResponse47]

.@POTUS on his call with PM Netanyahu: "I said, 'Do what's right, but I want you to stop as quickly as you can' — because they have to stop. This had to do with Lebanon, and it has to stop. We want to get it finished."

[NTV Kenya @ntvkenya]

Gachagua: The right to a fair hearing has been trashed and ignored in broad daylight... We shall proceed to file an appeal at the Court of Appeal on the decision and hope that justice will prevail.

[Faith Odhiambo @FaithOdhiambo8]

Yesterday's High Court judgment on the impeachment of H.E. Rigathi Gachagua raises serious and legitimate questions that our constitutional jurisprudence must grapple with honestly. The three-judge bench found that the Senate violated the former Deputy President's right to a fair hearing under Article 50 of the Constitution specifically by declining to grant an adjournment when he was unable to attend the proceedings. The court acknowledged that violation, issued a declaratory order and awarded Ksh.50 million in constitutional damages. Yet the bench ultimately upheld the impeachment itself. I respect the court and the constitutional role it plays. But I believe this outcome calls for serious reflection on the coherence of our remedial framework.

The tension in the judgment lies in this, if the Senate's refusal to adjourn was a constitutional infirmity serious enough to warrant a finding of violation and a Ksh.50 million award, then the question that naturally follows is whether that infirmity was capable of tainting the entire removal process. The right to a fair hearing is not procedural decoration. It is a substantive constitutional guarantee, particularly in proceedings that result in the removal of a person from high public office. Courts must therefore grapple carefully with what it means to vindicate a right while simultaneously affirming the outcome that flowed from its violation. It is a difficult balance and I appreciate that the bench was navigating complicated constitutional terrain.

It is instructive to recall the reasoning of the Supreme Court in the landmark 2017 presidential election petition delivered by the then Chief Justice David Maraga. The court, in a 4-2 majority, nullified the presidential election not on the basis that the outcome was necessarily wrong but on the basis that the process through which it was arrived at did not conform to the Constitution and the law. The court found that irregularities and illegalities in the transmission of results had compromised the integrity of the election and that the constitutional standard required more than a plausible result, it required a process that was itself constitutionally compliant. That principle that a flawed process cannot produce a constitutionally valid outcome remains a pillar of our public law.

When we place that 2017 reasoning alongside yesterday's judgment, a legitimate concern emerges. Both cases involved constitutional violations in the course of a high-stakes removal or electoral process. In 2017, the violation of constitutional standards was sufficient to nullify the result entirely. Yesterday, a violation of the right to a fair hearing was found, remedied in damages but the result was preserved. These are not necessarily irreconcilable positions, courts do have discretion in fashioning remedies but the distinction must be clearly reasoned and transparently justified because the precedent being set will govern how future impeachments are conducted and how future courts respond to violations within those processes.

My concern is about the precedent this decision may establish. If a constitutional violation during impeachment proceedings can be remedied by damages without disturbing the outcome, future Parliaments and Senates may not feel the full weight of their constitutional obligations when handling removal proceedings. The court itself noted the urgent need for Parliament to enact a dedicated statutory framework under Article 150 governing the removal of a Deputy President which is a legislative gap that should never have existed this long. That recommendation must not be ignored. A constitutional democracy is built on the integrity of its processes not merely its outcomes. We must ensure that the right to a fair hearing in Kenya remains substantive and not merely symbolic.

[Tevin Macharia Mukabana @TevinMacharia]

If your knees can touch the ground ,your head can wear the crown - Apostle Joshua Selman

[Tevin Macharia Mukabana @TevinMacharia]

Pray for power to overcome any challenges in life - Apostle Joshua Selman

[Tevin Macharia Mukabana @TevinMacharia]

If you are going through hard times please listen to this by Apostle Joshua Selman

[Tevin Macharia Mukabana @TevinMacharia]

There are times you cry alone - Apostle Joshua Selman

[NTV Kenya @ntvkenya]

If Senate denied Rigathi Gachagua a fair hearing, his impeachment is null and void, LSK President Charles Kanjama says.

#FixingTheNationNTV @NationFmKE @EricLatiff @MariamBishar @blinkypenguin

[Tevin Macharia Mukabana @TevinMacharia]

Apostle Joshua Selman is really good at this

[C14 News | EN @c14english]

🚨🇮🇷 BREAKING: Iranian leadership loses contact with Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei.

[Dr. Miguna Miguna @MigunaMiguna]

Did Dennis Onyango says nobody destroyed Raila Odinga’s 2022 presidential quest like the Fat Toad of Buffalo, Makau Mutua?

I told Kenyans more than 15 years ago that Makau Mutua was the most useless professor since Professor William Robert Ochieng’ sang for Moi’s dictatorship, except that Ochieng’ was actually an organic intellectual.

[ANI @ANI]

#WATCH | On speaking to Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu, US President Donald J Trump says, "He was hit (by Iran), and he hit back. I can't blame him for that. Now they've called it quits. So they're gonna leave each other alone for another week or something... They both agreed, through me, to stop. We're in the final throes of a very good deal that will not allow in any way or form nuclear weapons. And the Strait will open up right away. It'll open up immediately upon signing, which could be in two or three days."

(Source: UD Network pool via Reuters)

[Jesse Watters @JesseBWatters]

🚨 MUST WATCH: ISRAEL WAS JUST CAUGHT SPYING ON THE PENTAGON AND TRUMP’S TOP NEGOTIATOR… VICE PRESIDENT JD VANCE REACTS 🚨

“Israel may like that, they may not like that… this is in the BEST INTEREST of the United States of America” 🇺🇸🔥

[Willis Evans Otieno @otienowill]

The judgment appears to leave a significant tension unresolved.

A finding that a person was denied a fair hearing ordinarily goes to the heart of the decision-making process. Fair hearing is not a peripheral right that can be separated from the outcome; it is a constitutional prerequisite for the validity of the process itself.

That is why many legal observers will ask: if the impeachment process was tainted by a violation of due process, how does the resulting Senate determination remain unaffected? The relationship between procedural fairness and the validity of the outcome requires careful legal explanation.

The second question concerns the practical consequences of the judgment. If the impeachment process is found to have suffered constitutional defects, what does that mean for the legal disabilities arising from that process? Does the judgment remove them, preserve them, or leave the matter for another court to determine?

Ultimately, constitutional litigation should bring clarity and legal certainty. Where a judgment simultaneously identifies a violation of fundamental rights while preserving the consequences flowing from the impugned process, questions are bound to arise regarding the coherence of the legal reasoning.

I suspect this matter is far from concluded and may ultimately require appellate clarification.

[Migai Akech @MigaiAkech]

On what basis does the High Court determine that Riggy G should have 50m as compensation for the violation of his right to a fair hearing? This is merits review that goes beyond the court's jurisdiction. Court should have remited matter to Senate to conduct a fair hearing.

[KTN News @KTNNewsKE]

Lawyer Harrison Kinyanjui: The motion that was tabled by Hon. Mutuse was dead on arrival. The standing order no.64, subsection no.5 says that if an MP withdraws a signature, that motion dies at that point. Let's Be Real.

[Charles Kanjama SC @ckanjama]

Following the arrest of Chief Justice Emeritus David Maraga and fellow environmental activists earlier today, I joined members of the LSK Council and other volunteers at Lang’ata Police Station to personally enforce our legal defense machinery.

I am pleased to confirm that, through the efforts of the LSK legal team and our partners, the activists arrested alongside the CJ Emeritus @dkmaraga have since been released on free bond.

The @LawSocietyofKe remains steadfast in defending constitutional freedoms, protecting civic space and ensuring that no Kenyan is subjected to unlawful or arbitrary deprivation of liberty for peacefully exercising constitutional rights.

[Nelson Havi SC @NelsonHavi]

Before which Court will they arraign C J David Maraga? Some actions and decisions by the Executive are often outrightly stupid.

[Nelson Havi SC @NelsonHavi]

It was good that the entire judgment was read word for word and broadcasted live for ten hours to the entire Kenyan public. How else would you have understood the problems we keep pointing out daily about incompetence, misconduct and misbehavior by a Judges?

[Migai Akech @MigaiAkech]

A flawed process can only produce a flawed outcome. No fair hearing, no fair outcome. The only remedy in such a case is for the court to void the process and its outcome, and order the decision-maker (Senate in this case) to make a fresh decision.