Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 693901,
    "url": "http://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/693901/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 32,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Mr. Charles Njenga",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "Mr. Speaker, Sir, hon. Members, on behalf of the county assembly I respond to the application on the issue of summoning the office of the Controller of Budget. That is a matter that is entirely at your discretion. As Sen. Mutula Kilonzo Jnr. has stated, there has to be a basis laid for that invitation. But that is a matter that is entirely within the Senate’s discretion. If it determines that, that witness is necessary to complete its investigations in the matter, then that is a discretion that the House can exercise even without referring to the parties. But on the issue of additional evidence by way of addition of witness statements and additional video clips, we strongly object to their production at this stage mainly because as Mr. Speaker commented as we started that this is quasi-judicial process that should avail a fair hearing to both parties. We prepared our case and presentation yesterday, based on the material that was given to us by the Governor and the documents filed together with the submissions made. If you consider our presentations yesterday, we were making constant reference to their responses so that an additional inclusion of evidence at this stage, would be very prejudicial to the County Assembly having already completed our presentation. We would have wanted our witnesses to look at that evidence before we finalise our presentation. We are not aware of what is sought to be added into these proceedings and the effect of admitting any further evidence would be to reopen the proceedings. I can remember very clearly yesterday when I wanted to refer to a report that was not in our papers, there was strong objection both from the House and the Governor’s side. On that basis, we restrained ourselves and restricted our submissions on the material that was before the House and what we had filed. It cannot, therefore, be fair that today and now, then the other side is given leeway to reconfigure their case based on the submissions made yesterday, so that they can plug in any gaps that arose and, therefore, fashion a response that is an afterthought and is founded on the presentation that we made yesterday. I think fair play will demand that what was submitted as pleadings and evidence guide these proceedings and that each party abides by the rules. I can see the rules were very clear that any witnesses, statements and evidence ought to have been filed with the Clerk of the Senate by 12th September, 2016 at noon. I beg to oppose that application and pray that the proceedings proceed based on the evidence and material that we have on the Governor’s side. That is all."
}