Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 597090,
    "url": "http://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/597090/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 134,
    "type": "other",
    "speaker_name": "",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "(a) If the allegations have not been substantiated; further proceedings shall not be taken under this section in respect of that allegation. (b)If it has been substantiated, the Senate shall, after according the governor an opportunity to be heard, vote on the charges. It does not talk about debate. I want to agree and at the same time differ a little bit with Sen. Murkomen, because he says, we set a day when we can debate this. This is the day, we do not need any other Motion to debate this, because in Standing Order No.68 (4) (b), it does not say debate. It says vote but, we have always debated before we voted. Even if the Standing orders 68(4) (a) says that no further proceedings shall be undertaken, it does not bar us from having a debate on the report of the Committee. Mr. Speaker, Sir, my second point is in regard to Article 181 of the Constitution which forms the basis of our sitting today, and Article 181(2) states that:- “Parliament shall enact legislation for procedure of removal of a county governor on any of the grounds.” Therefore, the rules we follow that are established in our Standing orders and please, guide me if I am wrong. I have two issues, number one, is the issue of the Select Committee that we appointed when we appointed this Committee. I remember Sen. Keter Moved the Motion on behalf of the Leader of Majority and I seconded because our party leader was not around. I want to rise under Standing Order No.68 (1) (b) that the Senate by resolution may appoint a Special Committee. The word is “may”. Do we have to appoint Committees if Committees will take us the way we see Committees taking us? I want you to interpret this Standing Order for us because we could deal with this matter as a plenary or as a Senate instead of appointing Committees that come here and some of us do not agree with. It is a contradiction. You cannot tell us that the allegations were substantiated but they were not grave. If they were substantiated, then they were substantiated. Do we have to appoint a Committee? I want you to make a ruling on Standing Order No.68 (1) (b) that we “may” appoint. When we say “may”, then there must be another alternative; it is optional. We may or may not deal with the situation ourselves, sitting as plenary. The second one, is Standing Order No.68 (2) (b), on the issue of timelines, because there is no other law. The only thing that I think I know of and, Mr. Speaker, Sir, you may guide us---"
}