Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1001584,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1001584/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 158,
    "type": "other",
    "speaker_name": "",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "references, the House will agree that a Commissioner of PSC ought not be beholden to any partisan interests in the execution of his or her duties, as doing so, would be an affront to the Constitution. Hon. Members, moving on, the question of the manner in which the process of removal may be initiated is inextricably linked to the form in which either the Motion by a Member in the case of the PSC or the petition by a member of the public in the case of constitutional commissions and independent offices under Article 248 of the Constitution is proposed or submitted respectively. The inclusion of independent offices and commissions in our Constitution is linked to the desire for decentralization by the people of Kenya. They are vital to ensuring limited government interference and to play an important role in the pursuit of good governance and democracy in the country. It is for this reason that the constitution set high qualifications for appointment and specific grounds and thresholds for removal from such offices. Those of you who were in the House during the Eleventh Parliament may recall that on Thursday, 22nd October 2015, I issued a Communication regarding the “Processing of Special Motions on Removal of State Officers” . In the Communication, I reiterated the high threshold set by the Constitution on the removal of State officers. The Communication observed that Articles 145, 150(2), 152(6) and 251(2)(a) & (b) of the Constitution require, as a ground for removal from the Office of the President, the Deputy President, Cabinet Secretary or member of a constitutional commission or independent office, a threshold of either gross violation of the Constitution or other laws or gross misconduct. Drawing from the decision of the High Court in the case of MartinNyaga Wambora & 30 Others vs the County Assembly of Embu & four Others (EmbuConstitutional Petition Nos. 7 & 8 of 20141 for a matter to amount to gross violation as a ground for removal from office, the following parameters ought to be satisfied- (iii) the allegation must be serious, substantial and weighty; (iv) there must be a nexus between the office holder and the alleged gross violations of the Constitution or any other written law; (v) the charges framed against and their particulars must disclose a gross violation of the Constitution or any other written law; and, (vi) the charges as framed must state with degree of precision the provisions of the Constitution or the provisions of any other written law that have been alleged to be grossly violated. Hon. Members, as I did guide the House at the time, 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 under the Standing Orders: Firstly, at the point of the approval of the Motion for impeachment or dismissal and secondly, at the point of investigations conducted by the relevant select committee. Therefore, as an initial guidance on the matter, it should be noted that the Constitution has placed certain thresholds for the removal of State Officers from office. In practicing those provisions, Standing Order No.47 (3)(b) and (e) requires the Speaker to take into account constitutional and evidential requirements while determining the admissibility or otherwise of a Motion, including all Special Motions brought under Part XIII of the Standing Orders, which relates to Special Motions. For that reason, and in the first instance, the Speaker is obliged to"
}