The Dual-Presidency Crisis: Political Finality versus Constitutional Supremacy in the Impeachment of Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua
Description
The constitutional crisis surrounding the impeachment of a Deputy President Hon Geoffrey Rigathi Gachagua EGH and the swearing-in of a successor Professor Abraham Kithure Kindiki has created one of the most serious constitutional debates in Kenya’s democratic history. 1The issue goes beyond ordinary political disagreements because it directly affects the stability of government, the authority of the Judiciary, the powers of Parliament and the supremacy of the Constitution of Kenya 2010.2 At the center of the crisis is a difficult constitutional question: if a Deputy President is removed through a process that is later declared unconstitutional by the courts, can the Judiciary reverse the succession after another person has already taken the oath of office? This question has produced what legal scholars describe as the “Dual-Presidency Crisis,” a situation where one individual claims political legitimacy through swearing-in while another claims legal legitimacy through judicial protection.3 The crisis demonstrates a major conflict between two constitutional principles. On one side is constitutional supremacy, which requires every state action to comply strictly with the Constitution. On the other side is the principle of political finality and executive stability, which seeks to preserve continuity in government and prevent institutional confusion. The Judiciary is therefore placed in a difficult position where it must balance constitutional justice against the practical realities of governing a modern state.4