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=157085",
"previous": "http://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/?format=api&page=157083",
"results": [
{
"id": 1589032,
"url": "http://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1589032/?format=api",
"text_counter": 73,
"type": "speech",
"speaker_name": "Sen. Kinyua",
"speaker_title": "",
"speaker": null,
"content": "Mr. Speaker, Sir, my issues were raised by Sen. Maanzo."
},
{
"id": 1589033,
"url": "http://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1589033/?format=api",
"text_counter": 74,
"type": "speech",
"speaker_name": "Hon. Kingi",
"speaker_title": "The Speaker",
"speaker": null,
"content": " Sen. Murango, proceed."
},
{
"id": 1589034,
"url": "http://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1589034/?format=api",
"text_counter": 75,
"type": "heading",
"speaker_name": "",
"speaker_title": "",
"speaker": null,
"content": "SUBMISSIONS BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE GOVERNOR AND THE COUNTY ASSEMBLY ON CLARIFICATIONS BY HON. SENATORS"
},
{
"id": 1589035,
"url": "http://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1589035/?format=api",
"text_counter": 76,
"type": "other",
"speaker_name": "",
"speaker_title": "",
"speaker": null,
"content": "Hon. Senators, we shall now move to hearing clarifications from the two teams, starting with the County Assembly. I had already indicated the time available to you, that is; 15 minutes to the team from the County Assembly and 15 minutes for the Governor's team. You may proceed, counsel."
},
{
"id": 1589036,
"url": "http://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1589036/?format=api",
"text_counter": 77,
"type": "speech",
"speaker_name": "Mr. Paul Nyamodi",
"speaker_title": "",
"speaker": null,
"content": "Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, Sir. I will start from the top. Sen. Cheruiyot, you are right. This matter is as complex as it is simple. Who is the clerk? Is it the clerk who swears an affidavit in the Governor's Statement? Is it the Clerk who swears an affidavit in support of the Impeachment Motion? It is the position of the County Assembly that the Governor captured the Clerk. That is a matter of evidence and that is evidence that we want to lead. When I said we want to cross-examine the Clerk, it will become apparent when you listen to that testimony that the Governor captured the Clerk, and the Clerk, for all intents and purposes, became a saboteur to the impeachment proceedings. You will see in the Clerk’s statement, where he says “I cancelled the public participation”. That is what I meant. It is important that the Senate enables this Motion to get to the point where the evidence is laid before you, so that you can then make up your determination about what happened, who captured who and who did not capture who. The electronic version of the Senate Hansard Report is for information purposesonly. A certified version of this Report can be obtained from the Director, Hansard and AudioServices, Senate."
},
{
"id": 1589037,
"url": "http://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1589037/?format=api",
"text_counter": 78,
"type": "speech",
"speaker_name": "Mr. Paul Nyamodi",
"speaker_title": "",
"speaker": null,
"content": "It is the County Assembly's position that the Governor cannot capture the Clerk, hold the Clerk and then say that because there was no Clerk, there can be no impeachment. It is apparent in law; you cannot do things like that and seek to benefit from them. Therefore, this Motion must then get to the point where evidence is laid. Sen. Maanzo asked us: What is our rebuttal to the points given? I had stated that a preliminary objection is, in our humble understanding, an issue of law that is raised. There are several factual rebuttals, but we as counsel, in the privileged position we occupy, are unable to testify. Our witnesses have rebutted those things that counsel have said and it is vitally important that this Motion gets to the point where the Senate can hear that testimony from the witnesses themselves. We say, yes, there were sittings that took place and we have said further that from the conduct of the Governor who took those proceedings to court, they acknowledge that the County Assembly did take place. There is an affidavit from a Senior Superintendent of Police in Isiolo, who says that he went and the proceedings in the County Assembly were disrupted. Surely, the Senate must hear from that superintendent of police. We have cross-examination to put to him, so that you make up your mind about what happened in those proceedings, who sabotaged those proceedings and who took part so that you can make up your mind. Yes, it is complex and simple at the same time. Sen. Karungo asked: Do we have audio and video of the HANSARD reports of the day? I will allow my colleague to respond to that question. Sen. (Prof.) Ojienda, SC, sittings were the basis of the orders obtained in the High Court sitting in Meru. Yes, we allege that there is an estoppel. Was there a sitting? Yes, there was a sitting and that is why there is a HANSARD report that the Governor's advocates seek to now criticise at the preliminary stage. If there were no sittings, there would be no HANSARD reports. If there were no sittings, there would then be no foundation for the Governor's advocates to go to court in Meru on the 26th of June and get the orders that they did. That those orders exist from where we sit is proof that those sittings took place. Sen. Mungatana asked: Has the Meru decision been appealed or stayed? Our position is that in respect to the impeachment proceedings, the Supreme Court in the Martin Nyaga Wambora’s matter gave guidance, not just to courts below, but to the county assemblies and to the Senate, as to what to do with orders that were issued, like the ones that were issued by the High Court in Meru in respect of incomplete impeachment proceedings. Those orders, according to the decision of the Supreme Court in Martin Nyaga Wambora - I think the wording used by the Supreme Court is that - ‘they should not then be immediately effected’. That is the guidance that has been given by the Supreme Court. Sen. Cherarkey wanted to know how many clerks are there in the County Assembly of Isiolo. I believe I have attempted to answer that question. Yes, there is a question as to how many clerks there were and who was the Clerk, but that is a matter of evidence. They have their position about who the Clerk was. We have our position about who the clerk was. The electronic version of the Senate Hansard Report is for information purposesonly. A certified version of this Report can be obtained from the Director, Hansard and AudioServices, Senate."
},
{
"id": 1589038,
"url": "http://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1589038/?format=api",
"text_counter": 79,
"type": "speech",
"speaker_name": "Mr. Paul Nyamodi",
"speaker_title": "",
"speaker": null,
"content": "As I have said, it is our thesis that they captured the Clerk, but the County Assembly needed to continue. That is a matter of evidence that will then need to be tabled. As an advocate, I am unable to testify to it, but I know those affidavits exist in the record. The other question was: Who invited the Army? Like I said, in the Governor's documents, there is an affidavit by a Senior Superintendent of Police. It is apparent that if he is swearing an affidavit for the Governor, then the answer as to who invited the police or the Army is answered by the fact of who the police or the Army testified in favour of. Was public participation done? Yes, public participation was done. Was public participation done in disregard of the court order? I want the answer that I have replied in respect of Sen. Mungatana's question as to what should be dealt with, court orders of the nature or of the species that was issued in Meru in respect of these impeachment proceedings, to also apply to that issue. Sen. Wambua asked: Is this the official HANSARD of the recorded proceedings? I will say yes, but my colleague, Mr. Mawira, will come and deal with that issue in more detail. He will explain to this House why those are the official HANSARD reports in respect of the proceedings. Sen. Wakili Sigei asked whether the ruling that the Motion was of no effect is that the Motion before this House. Yes, it is. I urge this House then to consider that ruling in respect or together with the ruling of the Supreme Court or the guidance of the Supreme Court as to what should be done with rulings of that nature. If I may state during my response to the questions from the Senators, if this House stops this Impeachment proceedings in respect of a court order like the one that has been issued, then as an advocate who has practised law for not an insignificant time, I can say without any fear of contradiction that this is the last impeachment that this House will do because the court orders will delay, delay and delay. There is a good reason why the Supreme Court took the position it did in the Martin Nyaga Wambora matter. There is no reason to depart from that position. There was a question as to whether the HANSARD report is full or abridged. Do we have an audio recording? Again, my colleague, Mr. Mawira, will respond to that. Sen. (Dr.) Khalwale said that there was no response from our part to the allegation that the documents were cooked. That is an issue of fact and because it is an issue of fact, it cannot fall from the mouth of the advocate that the documents were cooked. That can only come from a witness. From our corner, it can only come from our witnesses. That is their position. We have an answer and it is in the response or it is in the documents that were brought in support of the Motion. Since it is an issue of fact, it is not an issue that can be brought forward and tried as a preliminary issue as the legal team for the Governor seeks to invite this House to do. That is a contested issue in the Motion. I beseech this House to allow the Motion to get to the point where those who are competent and capable to testify to those contested facts are able to do it. Sen. (Dr.) Khalwale, in respect of finding at page 23 of Volume No.4; again, I will repeat my answer to that question. This is an order, the species of which was envisaged by the Supreme Court in the Martin Nyaga Wambora matter. Compliance does The electronic version of the Senate Hansard Report is for information purposesonly. A certified version of this Report can be obtained from the Director, Hansard and AudioServices, Senate."
},
{
"id": 1589039,
"url": "http://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1589039/?format=api",
"text_counter": 80,
"type": "speech",
"speaker_name": "Mr. Paul Nyamodi",
"speaker_title": "",
"speaker": null,
"content": "not need to take place immediately. The Supreme Court then is clear that such an order, when issued by the High Court, should not and cannot get in the way of impeachment proceedings. The High Court's jurisdiction only arises once the impeachment proceeding is complete. When I was on my feet earlier on, I made the statement that what the Supreme Court envisages is an instance where even where the impeaching house is making a mistake, allow them to complete the mistake because that is how institutions grow and that is why the Supreme Court held as they did. Again, I will emphasise that these are time-bound proceedings. If we then expose ourselves to the judicial process, we will never finish. Sen. Kavindu Muthama asked us to clarify if there were sittings held on the 18th and the 25th of June, 2025. Yes, and that is the only way that the Motion could have gotten to the Senate. My colleague will demonstrate by reference to the HANSARD in the evidence in support of the Motion when and how those proceedings took place. Mr. Speaker, Sir, would it be in order for the Senate to proceed against a court order? I will ask to perhaps add a word in the question that was put to us by Sen. Muthama. Will it be in order for the Senate to proceed against an unlawful court order? We have gone to great lengths to demonstrate that the order is unlawful, and is made without jurisdiction, in circumstances where it is clear. There are binding pronouncements both of the Court of Appeal and of the Supreme Court that, that court disregarded, and that the court's jurisdiction only arises upon the completion of the impeachment proceedings. Those proceedings have not been completed and that order is therefore to be ignored. I cede the rest of my time to my learned colleague so that he can cover the other important issues."
},
{
"id": 1589040,
"url": "http://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1589040/?format=api",
"text_counter": 81,
"type": "speech",
"speaker_name": "Mr. Boniface Mawira",
"speaker_title": "",
"speaker": null,
"content": "Mr. Speaker, Sir, my name is Mwereru Boniface Mawira. On the first question by the Senate Majority Leader on who the Clerk of the Assembly at the moment is, from Salad Boru's affidavits, the Clerk of the Assembly, he has sworn an affidavit in support of the Governor's case. From his affidavit, he confirms that he was sent on compulsory leave on 16th June, 2025. The Court suspended the decision sending him on compulsory leave on 1st July, 2025. The Motion that is before you was tabled on 18th of June, when the Clerk was on leave. It was debated on 26th June, 2025, still when the Clerk was on leave. Therefore, the Clerk cannot be a witness of fact as to what transpired in the Assembly on these two days, when the Motion was tabled and when it was debated because he was on compulsory leave. He only resumed after the Employment and Labour Relations Court granted him interim relief on 1st of July. In reference to the question by Sen. Karungo, the video and audio proceedings of the HANSARD has not been filed. It was not anticipated by the Assembly at the time of filing his documents that the Governor would be challenging whether there was a sitting. However, I have just been informed by the Speaker that the Assembly has an audio recording of the HANSARD. So, if it is required, it shall be filed with the Office of the Clerk of the Senate. The electronic version of the Senate Hansard Report is for information purposesonly. A certified version of this Report can be obtained from the Director, Hansard and AudioServices, Senate."
},
{
"id": 1589041,
"url": "http://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1589041/?format=api",
"text_counter": 82,
"type": "speech",
"speaker_name": "Mr. Boniface Mawira",
"speaker_title": "",
"speaker": null,
"content": "Mr. Speaker, Sir, I have checked the rules and they do not provide for filing of additional documents after documents have been exchanged between parties on Friday, when we came and served the Office of the Clerk of the Senate with the documents for the respective parties. So, if the audio recording of the HANSARD is required, it shall be provided. On the question by Sen. Mumma on whether there is a social media site for the County Assembly, there is no social media site for the Assembly proceedings. So, there is no record either on YouTube on the Assembly sitting for that day. For other previous proceedings, if there are members of the press who are allowed in the Chamber, there are proceedings for those days. However, on this specific day, there was violence and as I have said, this is a matter of evidence. If you go to our Volume No.1, you will find an Occurence Book (OB) report on page 42. This OB report is on the breaking in of the County Assembly on the date of the debate. Mr. Speaker, Sir, with your leave, I would request that our Video No.6 be played. That video will demonstrate that the entire HANSARD Department of the County Assembly was vandalized on the 26th June, 2025, when the debate on the Motion was ongoing. Therefore, all the County Assembly’s records, including the HANSARD of the 18th, were stolen. What is more curious, from our Video No.9 in our folder, is that the only office in the entire County Assembly that was spared is the Office of the Clerk. This Clerk is a witness for the Governor. On the question by Sen. Nyamu on whether the Governor was invited, it is, indeed, true. On our Volume No.5, page five, there is a letter of invitation sent to the Governor. It was served and an affidavit of service is filed in that regard. On the last question by Sen. Omtatah on the effect of that court order, a court order that is given by a court lacking in jurisdiction, as my senior said, is a nullity in law. It is of no legal consequence, to borrow the words by the Governor's lawyers. On the question by Sen. Mundigi, indeed, public participation was undertaken. We have two volumes, Volume No.4A and Volume No.4B on that question. I would request your indulgence for time to have those two videos played. They are crucial to this question of whether, indeed, the Assembly sat, because they demonstrate the violence and the vandalism that took place in the Assembly on the 26th of June. In that regard, I would request for maybe additional time to play those two videos."
}
]
}