Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1004599,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1004599/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 11,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Speaker",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "in my previous communication on Motions and procedure for removal of persons from constitutional offices. In furtherance to the provisions of Article 259 (5) and (6) of the Constitution regarding the counting of time, today’s Sitting provides the earliest opportunity for me to make the decision on the proposed Motion known to the House, since three days ended yesterday, which was not a sitting day. In this regard, Hon. Members, I wish to observe as follows: (i) It is evident that the Motion proposed by the Hon. Member for Nyali Constituency has fulfilled the precondition of requisite support under Article 152(6) of the Constitution and Standing Order 66(1), having been supported by 90 Members who have appended their respective signatures alongside the Motion; and (ii) Whereas the Hon. Member has specified the particulars under each ground and also cited Articles 10, 73 and 125 of the Constitution as the provisions that the Cabinet Secretary has allegedly violated, the proposed Motion fails on one important requirement. Standing Order 64(1A) requires that a proposed Motion be accompanied by necessary evidence, including annexures or sworn testimonies in respect of the allegations. Indeed, the only way that the Speaker is able to make a determination as to whether the particulars provided under each ground may contain a gross violation of the Constitution or gross misconduct is by examining the evidence so provided in support of the allegations before approving the Motion. The Notice of Motion by the Member for Nyali Constituency lacks any annexures or sworn testimonies or any other evidence thereto. In the circumstances, I am unable to confirm whether the allegations contained in the Notice meet the threshold or, indeed, whether there is any nexus between the allegations and the role of the Cabinet Secretary as required by the Standing Orders. Hon. Members, to admit a proposed Motion that is not supported by any evidence of how, for instance, the Cabinet Secretary has grossly violated the Constitution by failing to conduct public participation in implementing policy decisions at the Ministry or allegedly failed to deliver on key infrastructure, as alleged by the Hon. Member for Nyali or even the alleged loss of Ksh5.2 billion at the Ministry of Health, would not only be a violation of the Standing Orders, but would amount to enjoining the House to go on a wild goose chase. Hon. Members, in view of the foregoing and pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 47 (3) (a) and (e), it is therefore my determination that the proposed Motion by the Hon. Member for Nyali Constituency is inadmissible having failed to comply with the provisions of Standing Order 64 (1A)(c)."
}