Kenyan Parents In USA

The Law Is an Ass? Why Many Kenyans Are Confused by the Gachagua Judgment
Many Kenyans are asking a simple question after the court ruling on former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua's impeachment:
If he was not given a fair hearing, why was the impeachment allowed to stand?
That is the question that has left many people confused.
The judges agreed that there were problems with the Senate process. They found that some of Gachagua's constitutional rights were violated. In fact, they even awarded him damages because of those violations.
But despite saying that mistakes were made and rights were violated, the court still allowed the impeachment to remain in place.
To many ordinary Kenyans, this sounds contradictory.
It is like telling a student that an examination was not conducted fairly, but still forcing the student to accept the results.
Or imagine a football match where one team is denied a chance to properly defend itself. After the match, the referee admits mistakes were made but still refuses to replay the game. Instead, he gives the losing team some money and tells them to go home.
Most people would not consider that justice.
Those who support the judgment argue that the mistakes made during the Senate hearing did not change the final result. They believe that even if the process had been conducted perfectly, Gachagua would still have been impeached. Therefore, they say the outcome should remain while compensation is paid for the unfair treatment.
But many Kenyans see the matter differently.
They argue that the Constitution is meant to protect every citizen from unfair treatment. If a court finds that a process was unfair, then the proper remedy should be to repeat the process correctly, not simply pay compensation and move on.
The concern is bigger than Gachagua himself.
Today it may be a Deputy President. Tomorrow it could be an ordinary Kenyan appearing before a tribunal, a court, or a government agency. If constitutional rights can be violated without affecting the final decision, people may begin to wonder whether those rights truly have meaning.
The debate therefore comes down to one simple question:
Can an unfair process produce a fair result?
Many lawyers will say yes under certain circumstances.
Many ordinary citizens will say no.
If I were the judge, I would ask only one question:
Did Rigathi Gachagua receive a fair hearing before the Senate?
If the answer is no, then the impeachment should be set aside and the hearing repeated according to the Constitution.
Justice is not only about reaching the right result. It is also about using the right process to get there.
That is why the old saying, "The law is an ass," still survives today. It reflects the frustration of ordinary people when legal decisions appear to contradict common sense.
Whether one supports Gachagua or not is beside the point. The real issue is whether Kenyans can continue to trust that constitutional rights will be fully protected whenever the State exercises power.
The law may have spoken, but the public debate is far from over.
By Arch. Dr. D.K. Gitau
Political Analyst and Human Rights Commentator

Is Omar Hassan Being Sacrificed to Win Back Mt Kenya?

What is emerging in Kenya’s political landscape appears less like genuine outrage and more like calculated political theater carefully designed to regain lost trust in the Mt Kenya region. Omar Hassan’s ethnic remarks and the swift condemnation from leaders within United Democratic Alliance seem too coordinated to ignore. Many Kenyans now believe the entire drama could be part of a wider script aimed at convincing Kikuyus that the ruling establishment suddenly cares deeply about their welfare and dignity.
The political reality is that support for Kenya Kwanza in parts of Mt Kenya has significantly weakened due to economic hardships, broken promises, taxation pressure, and internal political betrayals. With elections always in mind, strategists understand that ethnic emotions remain powerful tools for political mobilization. By allowing one controversial figure to make reckless remarks and then publicly condemning him, the government creates an image of being balanced, responsive, and protective of national unity.
What many observers find interesting is the speed and uniformity of the condemnation. Leaders who have remained silent on many national concerns suddenly found their voices almost instantly. That has fueled speculation that Omar Hassan may now serve as a political sacrifice intended to clean the image of the administration in the eyes of angry Mt Kenya voters.
The next predictable stage, according to critics, may involve senior figures distancing themselves further from Omar, with some even demanding disciplinary action or removal from positions of influence. Such a move would then be marketed as proof that the government does not tolerate tribal politics. Yet to many citizens, the damage may already be done because the public increasingly sees through choreographed political performances.
Kenya’s greatest danger remains the continued use of ethnicity as a campaign weapon. Instead of addressing unemployment, corruption, taxation, healthcare, and the high cost of living, politicians repeatedly return to tribal calculations whenever political survival is threatened. Ordinary Kenyans from every community continue to suffer while political elites manipulate ethnic tensions for temporary electoral advantage.
If indeed Omar Hassan has become politically inconvenient, his downfall may not come because leaders suddenly discovered morality, but because he is no longer useful to the larger political strategy.

Leadership without loyalty to those who stood with you in difficult times becomes dangerous arrogance. President William Ruto occupies the highest office in the land partly because former President Uhuru Kenyatta made a political decision to elevate him to Deputy President. Whether they later disagreed politically or not, history cannot be erased. That political bridge mattered.
Then came Rigathi Gachagua, who campaigned tirelessly and mobilized massive support, especially in Central Kenya, defending Ruto amid widespread doubts about his political survival. Politics is about interests, yes, but it is also about memory, gratitude, and political decency.
There is an African saying: do not forget the stone that helped you cross the river. Sadly, Kenya is witnessing a dangerous culture in which leaders quickly discard allies after gaining power. Instead of engaging former partners respectfully, there now appears to be a coordinated effort by political cronies and online attack dogs whose daily mission is to insult, ridicule, and demonize individuals who once stood shoulder to shoulder with the current administration.
Even more disturbing is the reckless trend of constantly invoking the land owned by the Kenyatta family to incite public emotions and manufacture hatred. Many of those making noise today were not even born when the historical circumstances surrounding land ownership unfolded. They neither understand the complexities of post-colonial Kenya nor appreciate the delicate dangers of weaponizing class anger and ethnic resentment for political gain.
Kenya cannot build a stable democracy through politics of bitterness and revenge. Continuously attacking families, revisiting historical wounds selectively, and encouraging public anger against certain communities is a dangerous road that can divide the nation deeply. Leaders and their supporters must learn that political disagreement should never become organized character assassination.
A mature democracy respects former allies, former presidents, and history itself. Power is temporary, but the record of how leaders treated friends, critics, and even opponents remains permanent. Kenya deserves issue-based leadership, not endless political vendettas disguised as public mobilization.

TikTok · GK Check out GK’s post.