HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, POST, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept
{
"count": 1608389,
"next": "http://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/?format=api&page=139356",
"previous": "http://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/?format=api&page=139354",
"results": [
{
"id": 1409961,
"url": "http://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1409961/?format=api",
"text_counter": 98,
"type": "speech",
"speaker_name": "Hon. Speaker",
"speaker_title": "",
"speaker": null,
"content": "Order! Hon. Okello, keep your cool."
},
{
"id": 1409962,
"url": "http://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1409962/?format=api",
"text_counter": 99,
"type": "scene",
"speaker_name": "",
"speaker_title": "",
"speaker": null,
"content": "(Laughter)"
},
{
"id": 1409963,
"url": "http://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1409963/?format=api",
"text_counter": 100,
"type": "speech",
"speaker_name": "Hon. Speaker",
"speaker_title": "",
"speaker": null,
"content": "I wish to notify you that pursuant to Article 152 (6) of the Constitution and Standing Orders 64 and 66, I am in receipt of a notice of a Special Motion dated 24th April 2024 from the Member for Bumula Constituency, Hon. Jack Wanami Wamboka, MP. The Member seeks a resolution of the House for the dismissal of the Hon. Franklin Mithika Linturi as the Cabinet Secretary for Agriculture and Livestock Development on grounds of gross violation of the Constitution or any other law, serious reasons to believe that the Cabinet Secretary has committed a crime under national law and gross misconduct."
},
{
"id": 1409964,
"url": "http://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1409964/?format=api",
"text_counter": 101,
"type": "scene",
"speaker_name": "",
"speaker_title": "",
"speaker": null,
"content": "(Applause)"
},
{
"id": 1409965,
"url": "http://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1409965/?format=api",
"text_counter": 102,
"type": "speech",
"speaker_name": "Hon. Speaker",
"speaker_title": "",
"speaker": null,
"content": "Standing Order 66(1) provides that before giving notice of a Motion under Article 152 (6) of the Constitution, a Member shall deliver to the Clerk a copy of the proposed Motion in writing. Whereas Standing Order 66(1) is silent on the timeline within which the Clerk is required to consider the proposed Motion and advise the Speaker, it must be noted that a Motion for dismissal of a Cabinet Secretary is a special Motion under Standing Order 61, which ought to be disposed of expeditiously. Consequently, the Clerk is required to consider the proposed motion and advise the Speaker without unnecessary delay. Further, in the case of the Speaker, Standing Orders 64 and 66 provide that a proposed Motion shall be disposed by the Speaker within three days of receipt of notice by a Member."
},
{
"id": 1409966,
"url": "http://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1409966/?format=api",
"text_counter": 103,
"type": "scene",
"speaker_name": "",
"speaker_title": "",
"speaker": null,
"content": "(Several Members walked into the Chamber)"
},
{
"id": 1409967,
"url": "http://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1409967/?format=api",
"text_counter": 104,
"type": "speech",
"speaker_name": "Hon. Speaker",
"speaker_title": "",
"speaker": null,
"content": "The three Members at the Bar, take your seats. This will take a little longer. Take the nearest seats. Thank you. The strict timeline of three days is intended to allow the Speaker to examine the proposed Motion and any evidence attached to it, and determine whether the proposed motion meets the procedural requirements outlined in the Standing Orders. In this regard, I note that the Member for Bumula Constituency submitted the proposed Motion to my office last week on Wednesday, 24th April 2024. Article 259(5) of the Constitution provides for the manner of computation of time. It guides that where time is 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"
},
{
"id": 1409968,
"url": "http://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1409968/?format=api",
"text_counter": 105,
"type": "speech",
"speaker_name": "Hon. Speaker",
"speaker_title": "",
"speaker": null,
"content": "expressed as days, the day on which the first event occurs is to be excluded, and the day by which the last event may occur is to be included when computing time. Consequently, the period of three days that applies to the Hon. Speaker in respect of the proposed Motion started running from Thursday, 25th April 2024. The three days expired on Saturday, 27th April 2024 and as such, the earliest available opportunity for the Hon. Speaker to notify the House on the admissibility of the proposed Special Motion is today, being the nearest available sitting of the House since receipt of the proposed Motion. Hon. Members, allow me to highlight the legal and procedural requirements that guide the process of dismissing a Cabinet Secretary. Article 152(6) of the Constitution provides that a member of the National Assembly, supported by at least one quarter of all the Members of the Assembly, may propose a Motion requiring the President to dismiss a Cabinet Secretary— (a) on the ground of a gross violation of a provision of the Constitution or of any other law; (b) where there are serious reasons for believing that the Cabinet Secretary has committed a crime under national or international law; or, (c) for gross misconduct. Procedurally, Standing Order 66(1) provides that “before giving Notice of Motion under Article 152(6) of the Constitution, a Member shall deliver to the Clerk a copy of the proposed Motion in writing— (a) stating the grounds and particulars in terms of Article152(6) of the Constitution upon which the proposed Motion is made; (b) signed by the Member; and, (c) signed in support by at least one-quarter of all the Members of the Assembly. Hon. Members, additionally, Standing Order 64(1A) provides as follows on the admissibility of grounds for removal from office: (1a) The grounds specified in a Motion under this Standing Order shall be admissible if— (a) framed clearly to particularise and disclose a gross violation of the Constitution or other written law, where gross violation of the Constitution or other written law is indicated as a ground for the intended removal; (b) stating with precision, the provisions of the Constitution or other written law that are alleged to have been grossly violated, where gross violation of the Constitution or other written law is indicated as a ground for the intended removal; and, (c) accompanied by necessary evidence, including annexures or sworn testimonies in respect of the allegations. Hon. Members, it is worth noting that Standing Orders 64(1A) and 66 as presently couched find their basis from the practice of the House in the 11th and 12th Parliament where notices of Motion were submitted by Members for dismissal of various Cabinet Secretaries. These include the Notice of Motion for dismissal of the then Cabinet Secretary for Devolution, Hon. Anne Waiguru; the Notice of Motion for dismissal of the then Cabinet Secretary for Transport, Mr. James Macharia and the Notice of Motion for the dismissal of the then Cabinet Secretary for Education, Prof. Jacob Kaimenyi. My predecessor, the Hon. Justin Muturi, Speaker, has had occasion to guide the House on the manner of considering a Special Motion such as the one proposed by the Hon. Member for Burnula. In a Communication issued on 22nd October 2015 on the Processing of Special Motions on removal of state officers, the Hon. Speaker guided the House as follows: 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"
},
{
"id": 1409969,
"url": "http://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1409969/?format=api",
"text_counter": 106,
"type": "speech",
"speaker_name": "Hon. Speaker",
"speaker_title": "",
"speaker": null,
"content": "1. That all Special Motions brought before the House under Article 152(6) of the Constitution should comply with thresholds established by the courts of law as to what constitutes gross violation of the Constitution or gross misconduct under the Constitution. 2. 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 exercisable in two instances: - Firstly, at the point of the approval of the Special Motion for impeachment or dismissal by the Hon. Speaker pursuant to Standing Order 47(3)(b) and (e) which requires the Hon. Speaker to be satisfied of the constitutional and evidential propriety of the Special Motions. Secondly, at the point of investigations conducted by the relevant Select Committee or tribunal, pursuant to the provisions of the relevant Article of the Constitution. 3. Averments made in the Special Motions should be accompanied by the necessary evidence including annexures and sworn testimonies in respect of the allegation as may be necessary. Hon. Members, our courts have also grappled with the question of the threshold for admissibility of impeachment motions. This has led them to set a standard for determining what constitutes \"gross violation of the law\" or \"gross misconduct\" in impeachment processes through a number of precedent-setting cases. Notably, the High Court of Kenya, in Martin Nyaga Wambora and 30 Others versus the County Assembly of Embu and 4 others (Embu Constitutional Petition Nos.7 and 8 of 2014), considered the issue of the required threshold for determining what amounts to a gross violation of the Constitution and gross misconduct in impeachment processes. With regard to what constitutes gross violation of the Constitution, the court observed that the charges framed against the governor and the particulars thereof must disclose a gross violation of the Constitution or any other written law; and the charges as framed must state with degree of precision the Article(s) or even Sub-Article(s) of the Constitution or the provisions of any other written law that have been alleged to be grossly violated. Hon. Members, the court further gave examples of constitutional provisions whose violation would constitute gross violation of the Constitution. According to the Court, these include: - 1. Chapter 1 – On the sovereignty of the people and supremacy of the Constitution, and more specifically Articles 1, 2 and 3(2) of the Constitution; 2. Chapter 2 – Article 4 that establishes Kenya as a sovereign multi-party Republic and Article 6 that establishes devolution and access to services; 3. Article 10 – On national values and principles of good governance; 4. Chapter 4 – On the Bill of Rights; 5. Chapter 6 – Articles 73 to 78 on leadership and integrity; 6. Chapter 12 – Article 201 on principles of public finance; 7. Chapter 13 – Article 232 on values and principles of public service; and 8. Chapter 14 – Article 238 on principles of national security, among other constitutional provisions. Further, in respect of what constitutes gross misconduct, the court observed that whether a conduct is gross or not will depend on the matter as exposed by the facts. It cannot be determined in a vacuum but in relation to the facts of the case and the law policing the facts. Gross misconduct is defined as ‘a grave violation’ or ‘breach of the provisions of the Constitution’ and a misconduct of such nature as amounts in the opinion of the House of Assembly to gross misconduct. Drawing from the foregoing, the House amended its Standing Orders at the end of the 11th Parliament to comply with the prescribed thresholds. Presently, our Standing Orders 64 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"
},
{
"id": 1409970,
"url": "http://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1409970/?format=api",
"text_counter": 107,
"type": "speech",
"speaker_name": "Hon. Speaker",
"speaker_title": "",
"speaker": null,
"content": "and 66 incorporate the pronouncements of the court on the threshold for admissibility of grounds for removal of a Cabinet Secretary by requiring that grounds in a Motion must be framed clearly to particularise and disclose a gross violation of the Constitution or other written law; and that such grounds must also state with precision, the provisions of the Constitution or other written law that are alleged to have been grossly violated. Hon. Members, having examined the legal and procedural requirements of processing Special Motions for the removal of persons from office, permit me now to determine whether the proposed Special Motion by the Member for Bumula Constituency is admissible. It is worth noting that Standing Order 47(3)(b) and (e) places an obligation on the Speaker to make a determination on whether any proposed Motion is contrary to the Constitution or contains allegations which the Mover cannot substantiate. As noted earlier, 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. It is exercisable in two instances. Firstly, at the point of the approval of the Special Motion for impeachment by the Speaker and at the point of investigations conducted by the relevant committee. In determining the admissibility of the Motion proposed by the Member, I am required to examine two key issues. The first issue is whether the proposed Motion meets the requirements of the Constitution and Standing Orders as to form and the threshold required to it. The second issue is whether the grounds as contained in the proposed Motion are admissible. On the first issue, I note that from a reading of Article 152(6) of the Constitution and Standing Order 66, a proposed Motion by a Member for the dismissal of a cabinet secretary must be supported by at least one-quarter of all Members of the Assembly. A quarter of all the Members of this Assembly is 87.25. In parliamentary practice, a decimal point is rounded off to a whole number. Consequently, the threshold for initiating a Motion for the dismissal of a cabinet secretary is 88 Members of this House. Standing Order 66 provides that the proposed Motion should be in writing; the proposed Motion should state the grounds and particulars in terms of Article 152(6) of the Constitution upon which the proposed Motion is made. The proposed Motion should be signed by the Member and signed in support by at least one-quarter of all the Members of the Assembly. Looking at the proposed Motion by the Member, I noted that pursuant to Article 152(6) of the Constitution and Standing Order 66, the Member has stated the grounds and given the particulars under which he proposes the dismissal of the Cabinet Secretary. Additionally, pursuant to Standing Order 66, the proposed Motion is also in writing and signed by the Hon. Member. Further, under Article 152(6) of the Constitution and Standing Order 66, the Hon. Member has attached a list of the signatures of 110 Members of the National Assembly who have signed the Motion in support."
}
]
}