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=157091",
"previous": "http://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/?format=api&page=157089",
"results": [
{
"id": 1589092,
"url": "http://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1589092/?format=api",
"text_counter": 133,
"type": "speech",
"speaker_name": "Hon. Kingi",
"speaker_title": "The Speaker",
"speaker": null,
"content": " Now, hon. Senators, having concluded the hearing of the preliminary issues raised, pursuant to Standing Order No. 38, as read together with Standing Order No.1, for the convenience of the Senate, I hereby suspend the sitting for 30 minutes to allow for the preparation and circulation of a Supplementary Order Paper 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": 1589093,
"url": "http://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1589093/?format=api",
"text_counter": 134,
"type": "speech",
"speaker_name": "Hon. Kingi",
"speaker_title": "The Speaker",
"speaker": null,
"content": "that will enable the Senate to make a fair and just determination on the issues that have been raised. You may rise."
},
{
"id": 1589094,
"url": "http://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1589094/?format=api",
"text_counter": 135,
"type": "scene",
"speaker_name": "",
"speaker_title": "",
"speaker": null,
"content": "(The Senate was suspended at 3.49 p.m.)"
},
{
"id": 1589095,
"url": "http://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1589095/?format=api",
"text_counter": 136,
"type": "scene",
"speaker_name": "",
"speaker_title": "",
"speaker": null,
"content": "(The Senate resumed at 5.10 p.m.)"
},
{
"id": 1589096,
"url": "http://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1589096/?format=api",
"text_counter": 137,
"type": "speech",
"speaker_name": "Hon. Kingi",
"speaker_title": "The Speaker",
"speaker": null,
"content": " Hon. Senators, welcome back. Clerk, proceed to call the first Order."
},
{
"id": 1589097,
"url": "http://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1589097/?format=api",
"text_counter": 138,
"type": "heading",
"speaker_name": "",
"speaker_title": "",
"speaker": null,
"content": "COMMUNICATION FROM THE CHAIR"
},
{
"id": 1589098,
"url": "http://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1589098/?format=api",
"text_counter": 139,
"type": "heading",
"speaker_name": "",
"speaker_title": "",
"speaker": null,
"content": "PRELIMINARY ISSUES ON THE PROPOSED REMOVAL FROM OFFICE, BY IMPEACHMENT, OF HON. ABDI IBRAHIM HASSAN, GOVERNOR OF ISIOLO COUNTY"
},
{
"id": 1589099,
"url": "http://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1589099/?format=api",
"text_counter": 140,
"type": "speech",
"speaker_name": "Hon. Kingi",
"speaker_title": "The Speaker",
"speaker": null,
"content": " Hon. Senators, following the commencement of the process of the proposed removal from office, by impeachment, of Hon. Abdi Ibrahim Hassan as Governor of Isiolo County, the firm of Theuri Wesonga, the advocates representing the Governor raised in writing, pursuant to Rule 14 of the Third Schedule of the Rules of Procedure for Hearing and Determination of the Proposed Removal from Office by Impeachment of a Governor, a preliminary objection. In particular, the advocate stated as follows- (a) That there was no valid or competent Motion for removal, by way of impeachment, of the Governor of Isiolo County, passed by a resolution of the County Assembly of Isiolo for the following reasons- (i) On 27th June, 2025 and 2nd July, 2025, the High Court in Isiolo vide Isiolo High Court Constitutional Petition Number E004 of 2025 Hon. Abdi Ibrahim Hassan vs County Assembly of Isiolo and two others, invalidated the proceedings of the County Assembly of 26th June, 2025, giving rise to the impugned impeachment and further declared the resolutions to impeach the Governor as null and void and of no legal consequence. In particular, the Governor’s Advocates drew the attention of the Senate to paragraphs 45 and 46 of the Court’s Ruling which stated as follows, and I quote- “45. Therefore, it is the finding of this court that the Motion dated 18th June, 2025 and debated by the 1st Respondent on 26th June, 2025 was in contravention of the Conservatory Orders of this Court issued on 25th June, 2025 hence the Resolution arising therefrom is null and void. Once an act is declared null and void, it is of no legal consequence. 46. As stated, the Resolution has evidently been submitted to the Speaker of the Senate. It is thus upon the Senate, once informed of the orders herein, to determine if it will proceed to handle the said Resolution, thus abetting a blatant disregard of the rule of law, or respect the orders.” 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": 1589100,
"url": "http://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1589100/?format=api",
"text_counter": 141,
"type": "speech",
"speaker_name": "Hon. Kingi",
"speaker_title": "The Speaker",
"speaker": null,
"content": "(ii) The law contemplates that impeachment proceedings can only be commenced and/or sustained before the Senate, upon the passage of a valid resolution by a county assembly in compliance with the procedures laid down in the law governing the removal of the Governor from office. However, in this instance, the County Assembly of Isiolo did not sit on 18th June, 2025 and 26th June, 2025, to table, debate, pass and/or vote on the Motion for removal of the Governor from office by way of impeachment. (b) That the purported HANSARD reports of 18th June and 26th June, 2025 relied upon and furnished to the Senate by the County Assembly were forged, concocted, manufactured and engineered at a venue outside the County Assembly Chambers and further that there exist no votes and proceedings, voice transcripts and video recordings to corroborate the HANSARD reports. Counsel invited the Senate to conduct a preliminary inquiry by way of a trial-within a trial in limine, with a view of establishing the authenticity of the HANSARD reports presented by the County Assembly in support of the impeachment proceedings. (c) That the purported impeachment Motion as presented by the County Assembly of Isiolo fails to meet the criteria and legal threshold under Article 181 of the Constitution, Section 33 of the County Governments Act, the Standing Orders of Isiolo County Assembly and the Standing Orders of the Senate. (d) That the impeachment Motion forwarded by the County Assembly of Isiolo is a sham, null and void and of no legal consequence to warrant admissibility, interrogation or any other action of the Senate hence the same should be struck out in limine . In response to the preliminary objections raised by the Advocate for the Governor, the firm of Alex & Boniface Advocates LLP, advocates for the County Assembly of Isiolo stated in writing- (a) That the preliminary objections raised by the Governor do not meet the threshold of a pure point of law as established by the time-honoured case of Mukisa BiscuitManufacturing Co Ltd vs West End Distributors (1969) EA 696. (b) That with regard to the first preliminary objection, the question of court orders that seek to prevent the Senate from fulfilling its constitutional duties has been settled by the Supreme Court of Kenya in Mate & another vs Wambora & another [2017] KESC 1(KLR) and the Court of Appeal in Mwangaza v County Assembly of Meru & another;Council of Governors (Interested Party) [2023] KECA 1599 (KLR) whereby the two courts held that courts lack jurisdiction and are forbidden from interfering with the constitutional mandate of county assemblies and the Senate. (c) That on the same question, the Speaker of the Senate recently ruled during the impeachment proceedings of the former Deputy President, that any injunction interfering with the work of Parliament has no effect on Parliament in the exercise of its constitutional functions. (d) That, consequently, the Senate through the Speaker of the Senate ought to dismiss the preliminary objection and proceed unabetted, unfettered and unhindered in line with its established precedents affirmed by both the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal. (e) That, in respect to the second preliminary objection (whether there was a sitting of the County Assembly to table, debate, pass and or vote on the Motion for removal of 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": 1589101,
"url": "http://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1589101/?format=api",
"text_counter": 142,
"type": "speech",
"speaker_name": "Hon. Kingi",
"speaker_title": "The Speaker",
"speaker": null,
"content": "the Governor from office by way of impeachment), the same is purely a factual and evidential matter that can only be resolved at the full trial. (f) That the Governor’s request for a preliminary inquiry or trial within a trial is untenable as it is a misguided attempt to obstruct and derail the proper proceedings of the House and it is only necessary when the subject matter of the mini-trial cannot be established in the full trial. (g) That on the alleged fraud and forgery relating to the HANSARD reports, fraud must be specifically pleaded and particulars of the fraud alleged must be stated on the face of the pleadings. Moreover, considering that the standard of proof for fraud is more than a balance of probability, the allegations can only be established after a full trial. (h) That the second preliminary objection is fatally defective and ought to be disallowed in the best interests of justice. (i) That in respect to the third preliminary objection, whether the impeachment Motion meets the criteria and legal threshold under Article 181 of the Constitution, Section 33 of the County Governments Act and the Standing Orders of the Isiolo County Assembly, the issue can only be determined once the Senate has interrogated all the facts and evidence in the impeachment Motion against the standard of impeachment as laid out by the Supreme Court in Sonko v County Assembly of Nairobi City & 11 others [2022]KESC 76 (KLR) . (j) That the third preliminary objection is also fatally defective as it calls upon the interrogation of the merits of the impeachment Motion at a preliminary stage, before the Senate has had the opportunity to hear the witnesses and consider the evidence led by the parties. (k) That the preliminary objections ought to be dismissed and the matter proceeds to a full trial for a determination on the merits. Now, Hon. Senators, counsel for the parties have this morning made oral submissions on the preliminary objections and responses thereto following which a number of Senators, including Sen. Cheruiyot, Sen. Daniel Maanzo, Sen. Thangwa, Sen. Tom Odhiambo Ojienda, SC, Sen. Mungatana MGH, Sen. Osotsi, Sen. Cherarkey, Sen. Wambua, Sen. Wakili Sigei, Sen. Mumma, Sen. Munyi Mundigi, Sen. Kavindu Muthama, Sen. Nyamu, Sen. Okiya Omtatah, Sen. Methu, Sen. Tobiko, Sen. Gataya Mo Fire and Sen. Okenyuri, sought clarifications on the same. In the clarifications, the Senators sought to be to be informed among other things, the identity of the Clerk of the County Assembly, whether there was a sitting of the County Assembly of Isiolo on the impeachment process; whether the HANSARD recording of the Assembly proceedings was submitted to the Senate in full and its validity in the proceedings before the Senate. The status of the decision of the High Court to nullify the proceedings of the County Assembly; whether the proceedings of the County Assembly are transmitted or broadcast live; the deployment of security officers at the County Assembly; whether the Impeachment Motion that was quashed by the High Court is the same Motion submitted to the Senate and its validity for impeachment proceedings against the governor; whether the sittings of the County Assembly were properly convened and whether or not there was a court order issued against the County Assembly on the impeachment process. 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."
}
]
}