Impeachment Explained: Why Removal From Office Tests the Strength of Democracy

Impeachment is one of the most serious constitutional tools available in a democracy. It is not simply a political weapon, nor is it merely a legal technicality. At its core, impeachment is a process designed to answer a difficult question: what should happen when a powerful public official is accused of misconduct serious enough to threaten public trust?

Recent events across different jurisdictions show why impeachment remains both necessary and deeply controversial. In the United States, two congressional Republicans from Georgia have introduced impeachment resolutions against a federal judge in Atlanta after a disciplinary investigation found alleged misconduct involving sex in chambers, attendance at a partisan political event and lying to investigators. In Kenya, the impeachment of former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua has triggered intense legal debate over fair hearing rights, parliamentary procedure and the role of courts in reviewing legislative decisions. In South Africa, Eastern Cape Judge President Selby Mbenenge is fighting to preserve his judicial status and lifetime benefits as impeachment proceedings loom after a sexual harassment scandal.

Together, these cases reveal impeachment as more than a headline-grabbing political event. It is a stress test for constitutional order, institutional accountability and the rule of law.

What Impeachment Is Meant to Achieve

Impeachment exists to hold high-ranking public officials accountable when ordinary disciplinary systems are considered inadequate. Depending on the country and office involved, it may apply to presidents, deputy presidents, judges or other constitutional officers.

The process typically has two broad purposes. First, it creates a formal mechanism for investigating and charging officials accused of serious misconduct. Second, it provides a route for removal from office when the misconduct is proven under the relevant constitutional or legal threshold.

But impeachment is not only about punishment. It is also about preserving confidence in institutions. When judges, presidents or senior public officers are accused of conduct inconsistent with their office, the public expects a process that is lawful, fair, transparent and serious.

That is why disputes over impeachment often focus not only on what an official allegedly did, but also on how the removal process itself was conducted.

A U.S. Judge Faces Impeachment Resolutions

In Atlanta, U.S. Reps. Clay Fuller and Andrew Clyde introduced impeachment resolutions against U.S. District Judge Eleanor Ross. The move followed a disciplinary investigation that found she had sex with a police officer in her chambers, attended a partisan political event and lied to investigators looking into alleged misconduct.

Clyde wrote Tuesday on social media that Ross’ “deeply disturbing actions prove she is incapable of displaying integrity or impartiality. She must be impeached and removed from the bench.”

The matter now turns to the House Judiciary Committee, which must decide whether to start impeachment proceedings. Federal judges in the United States are appointed for life and can only be removed from the bench through impeachment.

Ross was nominated to the Northern District of Georgia in January 2014 by then-President Barack Obama and confirmed by the Senate in November of that year. Before becoming a federal judge, she had served as a state court judge in DeKalb County since 2011 and had worked for more than a decade as a state and federal prosecutor, mostly in Atlanta.

A person who answered the phone in the judge’s chambers Tuesday afternoon said Ross had no comment.

The Allegations Behind the Judicial Discipline

The investigation began after one of Ross’ law clerks reported that, on multiple occasions, the judge had engaged in sexual activity with a high-ranking uniformed police officer in her office within earshot of staff. It was also alleged that she did not properly supervise clerks and, on one occasion, yelled and cursed at staff.

Ross received a “private reprimand” after the investigation confirmed the sexual activity and found that she attended a partisan event and initially lied to deny the allegations.

The court’s investigation did not publicly identify the judge or the court location within the 11th Circuit’s jurisdiction, which includes Alabama, Florida and Georgia. A person familiar with the situation, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive matter, confirmed that Ross was the judge who was disciplined.

Separately, the Atlanta Police Department has said it opened an investigation to determine whether the “high-ranking law enforcement officer” found to have had sex with a federal judge in the judge’s chambers is a member of the department.

What Investigators Found

William Pryor, the chief judge of the 11th Circuit, opened the initial investigation. He asked Ross to respond to the clerk’s allegations, and she replied the same day and “specifically denied” each allegation. In a follow-up email the next day, she speculated that the law clerk may have invented things in retaliation for being required to work in the office.

Pryor appointed a special committee to investigate. The committee’s review of logs and security footage showed that an officer had frequently visited the judge’s chambers in uniform around lunchtime. Six clerks recalled seeing someone who fit the officer’s description, and three remembered overhearing what may have been sexual activity in the judge’s office.

Three clerks also remembered bringing summer interns on their first day to watch the judge presiding over a hearing in a criminal case. Right after that, they told the committee, the judge declined to have lunch with the interns, acknowledging having too many martinis the night before at a primary election victory party for a district attorney friend.

The clerks said the judge did not provide sufficient guidance and “rarely, if ever, substantively edited civil orders the clerks drafted.” Although clerks described an “eggshell culture,” the committee did not find evidence of abusive behavior.

Ross ultimately admitted to having an extramarital sexual relationship with the officer but denied the allegations about mistreatment of staff. She also acknowledged having gone to a “mixer” of former employees of a district attorney’s office, where she used to work, but said it was in a separate room from the victory party.

The central institutional question is whether a private reprimand is sufficient for conduct that lawmakers now argue undermines the integrity and impartiality expected of a lifetime-appointed federal judge.

Kenya’s Gachagua Case: Fair Hearing Versus Finality

In Kenya, impeachment has become a constitutional battleground following the removal of former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua. Former Chief Justice David Maraga has warned that the High Court judgement on Gachagua’s impeachment could open the door to repeated legal breaches in future impeachment cases.

The court found that Gachagua’s right to a fair hearing was violated, yet awarded him Ksh.50 million in compensation instead of nullifying the impeachment approved by the Senate in October 2024.

Maraga disagreed sharply with that remedy.

“In my view, after that finding, the inevitable conclusion should have been to annul that impeachment,” he said during an interview with Spice FM on Wednesday.

He added: “When a right to a hearing is sacrosanct, the proper interpretation in my view is to annul what the Senate had done.”

Maraga argued that Article 25(c) of the Constitution establishes the right to a fair trial as an absolute, non-derogable right. To him, allowing an impeachment to stand after finding a violation of that right risks weakening the Constitution itself.

“Government officers would continue violating the Constitution knowing that they would not be punished individually. We would be entrenching the culture of impunity in our systems,” he said.

He warned further: “If we don’t take firm action in some cases, the constitution would be a suggestion and not a command, and that is how a country degenerates slowly into a failed state.”

Why the Remedy Matters

The Gachagua ruling has provoked debate because it separates two issues that many lawyers see as inseparable: whether a right was violated, and whether the outcome produced by that violation can still stand.

Maraga’s position reflects a process-based view of constitutional law. If the process was unconstitutional, the result should not survive merely because compensation is awarded afterward.

That argument has echoes in Kenya’s 2017 presidential election case, where the Supreme Court, in a four-against-two decision, nullified the presidential election over procedural irregularities and ordered a fresh election. Maraga said at the time that the election commission had failed “to conduct the presidential election in a manner consistent with the dictates of the constitution”.

The legal controversy then centered partly on Section 83 of the Elections Act and whether petitioners needed to prove that errors affected the final result. The Supreme Court ruled that an election could be nullified if irregularities were substantial enough to violate constitutional principles, shifting the focus from mathematical impact to the integrity of the process itself.

That same principle now sits at the heart of the impeachment debate: can a flawed process produce a constitutionally valid removal from office?

Legal Voices Warn of a Dangerous Precedent

Several legal figures have expressed dissatisfaction with the Gachagua ruling.

Lawyer Donald Kipkorir described the High Court decision as a “Judicial absurdity” or Reductio ad absurdum.

“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,” he argued.

He likened it to a “Cheptongei Village Tribunal judgement” where: “We agree with you that your neighour cut your fence & stole your cow. We can see the cow in its compound. But we are afraid we can’t return the cow as he has fixed the fence where he had cut. But to compensate you, we will give you a goat!”

Former Law Society of Kenya President Faith Odhiambo also said the ruling calls for reflection on Kenya’s remedial framework.

“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 a procedural decoration,” Odhiambo argued.

She contrasted the ruling with the 2017 Supreme Court judgement, noting that the election nullification was not based “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.”

Odhiambo warned that if a constitutional violation during impeachment proceedings can be remedied by damages without disturbing the outcome, the Senate and National Assembly may avoid meaningful repercussions for procedural breaches.

Representation and Voting Thresholds Under Scrutiny

Another legal challenge to impeachment procedure has come from lawyer and political analyst Harrison Kinyanjui, who questioned the legitimacy of a parliamentary impeachment vote over vacant constituencies.

Kinyanjui argued that the motion proceeded despite concerns that several constituencies lacked sitting representatives at the time of voting.

“Mwengi Mutuse presented the impeachment motion knowing very well that the MP for Banisa had died,” Kinyanjui said.

“He also knew that there were no sitting MPs for Suba South, Magarini, and Ugunja. Who spoke for the people of those constituencies?” he posed.

His argument centers on representation, voting thresholds and constitutional compliance. He cited Article 145 of the Constitution, saying impeachment proceedings must strictly comply with procedural safeguards to ensure legitimacy and fair representation of all constituencies.

According to Kinyanjui, the absence of duly elected representatives in some constituencies raises questions about whether the vote met constitutional standards. He described the process as fundamentally flawed and argued that representation gaps made the motion procedurally defective from the outset.

Mutuse Defends the Impeachment Process

Kibwezi West Member of Parliament Mwengi Mutuse, who sponsored the impeachment motion against Gachagua, has defended the process following the High Court ruling that upheld the impeachment.

“I was certain that our courts could not have arrived at any other finding than to uphold the impeachment of Mr Rigathi Gachagua,” Mutuse said.

Mutuse also called for stricter legal measures to regulate the political activities of impeached public officers, arguing that Parliament should address gaps in the law regarding their post-removal conduct.

Meanwhile, Gachagua has rejected the Ksh.50 million award, calling it a mockery of his fundamental rights and the Constitution. He said his legal team, led by Senior Counsel Paul Muite, would appeal, arguing that once the High Court established that his rights under Articles 25, 47 and 50 of the Constitution were breached, the entire ouster process should have been declared null and void.

The Senate has also vowed to challenge the High Court’s decision. Senate Speaker Amason Kingi says the High Court finding on violation of Gachagua’s right to a fair trial is erroneous and will be one of the grounds of appeal. Senators argue that the Judiciary should not interfere with the Senate’s constitutional mandate to conduct impeachment trials.

South Africa’s Mbenenge Case: Status, Benefits and Judicial Accountability

In South Africa, impeachment is also being tested through the case of Eastern Cape Judge President Selby Mbenenge. His battle seeks to preserve his title and safeguard his lifetime pension benefits while he faces possible impeachment following a sexual harassment scandal.

The matter began after Andiswa Mengo, a secretary in the Eastern Cape High Court, claimed that between 2021 and 2022 Mbenenge sent her inappropriate messages and x-rated pictures that she alleged were of him.

In January 2025, the Judicial Conduct Tribunal investigating the allegations held its first hearings. Retired Justice Bernard Ngoepe chaired the tribunal, supported by retired Judge Cynthia Pretorius and Advocate Gift Mashaba SC.

Mengo testified that she had tried to communicate her discomfort with the messages and had attempted to find ways to tell him “no,” but he persisted. Her lawyers argued that power dynamics were central to the case because Mbenenge was the most senior judge in the division.

The tribunal ultimately rejected the sexual harassment claim and did not find the judge president guilty of gross misconduct, but found that he contravened the Judicial Code of Conduct. Mbenenge is challenging that finding in the high court.

The Judicial Service Commission later overturned the tribunal’s ruling on misconduct, prompting Mbenenge’s court battle.

The High Court Fight to Block Impeachment

Mbenenge’s high court case has two parts. The first is his attempt to block his pending impeachment. Without an interdict, Parliament can begin the impeachment process.

The second part concerns the merits of the case. In an 86-page affidavit, he challenges the tribunal’s finding that he contravened article 5.1 of the judicial code and insists that the Judicial Service Commission’s finding of gross misconduct was heavily dependent on that point.

He claims the commission’s finding was irrational, unprocedural and inconsistent with the principle of legality. He also argues that it is unprecedented for the Judicial Service Commission to overturn the tribunal’s finding on misconduct.

Mbenenge has also highlighted a credibility finding made against Mengo by the tribunal. The tribunal found that Mengo perjured herself during her testimony and lied when responding to certain questions. Mbenenge says the commission ignored this when reaching its finding against him and also points out that Mengo had altered their WhatsApp conversations by deleting texts that did not suit her narrative.

The matter has been described as semi-urgent. The interdict application must be heard first, followed by the main case on the merits. Respondents include the Judicial Service Commission, the Judicial Conduct Tribunal, the National Assembly, the Speaker of Parliament, President Cyril Ramaphosa and Andiswa Mengo. The process is likely to take months before a final decision is reached.

The Common Thread: Procedure Is Power

Across these cases, impeachment is not merely about misconduct allegations. It is also about procedure.

In the U.S. case, the question is whether Congress should move beyond judicial discipline and initiate removal proceedings against a lifetime-appointed judge. In Kenya, the issue is whether an impeachment can stand if courts find that a fair hearing right was violated. In South Africa, the debate turns on whether a judge facing possible impeachment can block the process by challenging the legal foundation of the misconduct findings.

Each case shows that impeachment depends on two forms of legitimacy. The first is substantive legitimacy: whether the allegations are serious enough to justify removal. The second is procedural legitimacy: whether the process used to investigate, charge, try and remove an official respects constitutional safeguards.

Without substantive legitimacy, impeachment can look like political retaliation. Without procedural legitimacy, it can become constitutional theatre: a formal process that produces a result but fails to command public confidence.

Why Impeachment Matters Beyond Politics

For citizens, impeachment matters because it defines the limits of power. It tells the public that even senior officials are not beyond accountability. But it also tells officials that removal must follow law, not anger, convenience or political arithmetic.

For courts, impeachment cases raise difficult questions about institutional boundaries. How far should judges go in reviewing decisions made by legislatures? When does judicial intervention protect constitutional rights, and when does it risk interfering with a legislature’s mandate?

For legislatures, impeachment creates a responsibility to be both firm and careful. A rushed or procedurally weak process can damage the very accountability it seeks to enforce.

For public officers, these cases send a clear message: personal conduct, institutional integrity and respect for process are inseparable. The higher the office, the higher the expectation.

What Could Happen Next

Several developments are likely to shape the impeachment debate in the coming months.

In the United States, the House Judiciary Committee must decide whether to begin impeachment proceedings against Judge Eleanor Ross. That decision will determine whether the matter remains a disciplinary controversy or becomes a formal congressional removal process.

In Kenya, appeals from both Gachagua’s side and the Senate could clarify whether damages are an adequate remedy when fair hearing rights are violated in impeachment proceedings. The appellate process may also define how much courts can scrutinize parliamentary impeachment decisions.

In South Africa, the Pretoria High Court must first decide whether to interdict Mbenenge’s impeachment. The broader case could later address the legality of the Judicial Service Commission’s decision and the consequences for his title and lifetime benefits.

These cases may unfold in different countries, but they are part of the same constitutional conversation: how democracies remove powerful officials without undermining the rule of law.

Conclusion: Impeachment Is a Test of Constitutional Discipline

Impeachment is often presented as a dramatic clash between political rivals or institutions. But its deeper significance lies elsewhere. It is a test of constitutional discipline.

When used properly, impeachment protects the public from officials who abuse office, violate trust or behave in ways incompatible with their responsibilities. When used carelessly, it can become a tool of political pressure, institutional overreach or legal confusion.

The current disputes involving Judge Eleanor Ross, Rigathi Gachagua and Judge President Selby Mbenenge show that impeachment is not only about removal. It is about whether democratic systems can enforce accountability while still respecting fairness, representation, evidence and due process.

That balance is difficult. But without it, impeachment loses its legitimacy. And when impeachment loses legitimacy, the institutions it is meant to protect are weakened as well.