Mediator Evans Mwendwa

Christian, Husband, Father, HR, Mediator, Politician

[Mediator Evans Mwendwa @_mediator001_]

@NelsonHavi The guy is so much possessed with Mediators because they are doing a great job. He never wins any case for his clients. So we understand his frustrations.

[Mediator Evans Mwendwa @_mediator001_]

Doyen @WilliamsRuto

[Mediator Evans Mwendwa @_mediator001_]

@NdindiNyoro Bro, you knew the vote was for the very day you would be away, your personal life matters more than that of your Electorates. You should go home 2027

[Mediator Evans Mwendwa @_mediator001_]

@TheODMparty Sifuna will win

[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.

[Mediator Evans Mwendwa @_mediator001_]

The Yesterday's events at the High Court were simply a Political higi -haga. I view the Ruling as a win for Riggy G.

#furry #HighCourt

[Mediator Evans Mwendwa @_mediator001_]

@rigathi The Yesterday's events at the High Court were simply a Political higi -haga. I view the Ruling as a win for Riggy G.

[County Government of Machakos @countygovmks]

Improved mobility, independence, and dignity are transforming lives through the prosthetic limb programme at Machakos County Referral Hospital. So far, 68 beneficiaries have received prosthetic limbs, with 200 more set to benefit.
#InclusiveHealthcare #MachakosCounty

[Mediator Evans Mwendwa @_mediator001_]

@citizentvkenya Tax payers money should not be used to settle political foolishness, Every Senator who was present during the impugned impeachment should bear the award of the 50 million awarded to Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua.

[Mediator Evans Mwendwa @_mediator001_]

@OleItumbi Legally, any demonstrable breach of the right to a fair hearing undermines the constitutional validity of a process, meaning the matter should terminate upon such a finding. Accordingly, Gachagua enters the appellate phase with a structurally sound and legally robust case.

[Mediator Evans Mwendwa @_mediator001_]

@NjiruAdv Legally, any demonstrable breach of the right to a fair hearing undermines the constitutional validity of a process, meaning the matter should terminate upon such a finding. Accordingly, Gachagua enters the appellate phase with a structurally sound and legally robust case.

[Mediator Evans Mwendwa @_mediator001_]

@DonaldBKipkorir Legally, any demonstrable breach of the right to a fair hearing undermines the constitutional validity of a process, meaning the matter should terminate upon such a finding. Accordingly, Gachagua enters the appellate phase with a structurally sound and legally robust case.

[Donald B Kipkorir @DonaldBKipkorir]

Constitutional Division of our High Court holds that the Constitutional Rights of Gachagua were violated but proceeds to compensate him for the violation instead of annulling the process. The High Court has given the Court of Appeal an easy bifurcated choice: affirm the violation & nullify the impeachment or set aside the alleged violation & confirm the impeachment.

The decision of the High Court is a judicial absurdity: REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM!

[Mediator Evans Mwendwa @_mediator001_]

@citizentvkenya Legally, any demonstrable breach of the right to a fair hearing undermines the constitutional validity of a process, meaning the matter should terminate upon such a finding. Accordingly, Gachagua enters the appellate phase with a structurally sound and legally robust case.

[Mediator Evans Mwendwa @_mediator001_]

@KarungoThangwa Legally, any demonstrable breach of the right to a fair hearing undermines the constitutional validity of a process, meaning the matter should terminate upon such a finding. Accordingly, Gachagua enters the appellate phase with a structurally sound and legally robust case.

[Mediator Evans Mwendwa @_mediator001_]

@citizentvkenya Legally, any demonstrable breach of the right to a fair hearing undermines the constitutional validity of a process, meaning the matter should terminate upon such a finding. Accordingly, Gachagua enters the appellate phase with a structurally sound and legally robust case.

[Mediator Evans Mwendwa @_mediator001_]

@MigunaMiguna Legally, any demonstrable breach of the right to a fair hearing undermines the constitutional validity of a process, meaning the matter should terminate upon such a finding. Accordingly, Gachagua enters the appellate phase with a structurally sound and legally robust case.

[Mediator Evans Mwendwa @_mediator001_]

Legally, any demonstrable breach of the right to a fair hearing undermines the constitutional validity of a process, meaning the matter should terminate upon such a finding. Accordingly, Gachagua enters the appellate phase with a structurally sound and legally robust case.

[Mediator Evans Mwendwa @_mediator001_]

@scherargei Your Time will come.

[Ahmednasir Abdullahi SC @ahmednasirlaw]

Under Article 25(c) of the constitution, the right to fair trial is a non-derogable right. So how can the court make quasi constitutional excuses on amorphous grounds in its refusal to set aside the impeachment of Hon Rigathi Gachagua? The Gachagua judgment in my humble opinion is on a shaky, shallow, soggy and sandy soil.