Entry Instance

HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept

{
    "id": 592534,
    "url": "http://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/592534/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 77,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Speaker",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "The point I am struggling to make out of this light statement on a playful side is that section 188 is a very strong political weapon at the disposal of the House which must be used only in appropriate cases of serious wrong doing on the part of the governor or deputy governor, which is tantamount to gross misconduct within the meaning of subsection (11). Section 188 is not a weapon available to the Legislature to police a governor or deputy governor in every wrong doing. A governor or deputy governor, as a human being, cannot always be right and he cannot claim to be right always. That explains why Section 188 talks about gross misconduct. Accordingly, where misconduct is not gross, the Section 188 weapon of removal is not available to the House of Assembly.” Hon. Members, indeed, as stated earlier, I have also recently received inquiries on the need to amend the Standing Orders to clearly identify the issues of threshold in impeachment processes. However, although the Standing Orders have not addressed the issues of threshold, in light of the foregoing judicial pronouncements by the courts of law, the rule of law requires that the Special Motions brought before the House under Articles 145, 150(2), 152(6) and 251 of the Constitution, should comply with the foregoing thresholds established by the courts of law. In any event, in our particular case, the courts of law under Article 165 have the power to interpret the provisions of the Constitution. It is important for the House to note that the question of determining what constitutes gross violation of the Constitution or gross misconduct is one that clings and hangs on the impeachable authority of the House and is excisable in two instances under the Standing Orders; firstly, at the point of the approval of the Motion for impeachment or dismissal and secondly, at the point of investigations conducted by the relevant select committee. In the first instance, Standing Order 47(3)(b) and (e) requires the Speaker to take into account constitutional and evidential requirements while determining the admissibility or otherwise of a Motion including all Special Motions brought under Part XIII of the Standing Orders, which relates to Special Motions. In this respect, the Speaker would in effect be examining whether the Special Motion as presented contains and meets the threshold of the grounds envisaged under the relevant Article of the Constitution. This implies that a duty is imposed on the Speaker to examine the facts as stated in the Special Motion amounting to alleged gross violation of the Constitution or gross misconduct and to this extent the Speaker must be guided by the interpretation precedent set by the courts of law. In the second instance, Article 145(3) vests the impeachment authority of Parliament in respect of the President and the Deputy President on a Select Committee of the Senate which is mandated to investigate and report to the Senate, whether it finds the allegations against the President or Deputy President substantiated and in this case whether the grounds stated amount to gross violation of the Constitution or any other law and gross misconduct. Subsequently, if the allegations are substantiated, the Senate is mandated pursuant to Article 145(6)(b) to take a vote to approve the resolution requiring the President or Deputy President to be impeached. The electronic version of the Official Hansard Report is for information purposesonly. A certified version of this Report can be obtained from the Hansard Editor."
}