Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1299215,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1299215/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 36,
    "type": "other",
    "speaker_name": "",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "Hon. Senators, in the case of Mwangi wa Iria & 2 Others – vs - Speaker, Muranga County Assembly & 3 Others, Petition No.458 of 2015 Nairobi, Governor Mwangi wa Iria made an application seeking to restrain the Speaker of the Senate and the Senate from considering the Resolution from the County Assembly of Murang’a, of the removal of the Governor from office. At the time of hearing the said application by Governor Mwangi wa Iria, the Senate Special Committee constituted to consider the charges and investigate the matter of removal from office of the Governor had held its first meeting on 28th October, 2015, and was scheduled to hold another meeting with the parties concerned including the Governor and the County Assembly of Murang’a on 3rd November, 2015. In a ruling delivered on 3rd November, 2015, the Learned Justice Onguto (deceased), declined to issue any conservatory orders. In his application, the Governor had alleged that his constitutional rights had been infringed by the County Assembly, that there was no public participation by the County Assembly and that the County Assembly of Murang’a had not followed the correct procedure in impeaching him. Delivering his ruling on the application made by the Governor, the learned judge had the following to say- “I take cognizance of the fact that the Senate is truly, what I may call, the impeachment court. The Senate is expected not only to investigate the nexus of the allegations to the first petitioner. The Senate must also interrogate the entire process as it takes through the county assembly. I have seen no law that restrains the Senate from returning a verdict that the process was not conducted as detailed under the Constitution or any law.” The learned judge in making reference to the case of Martin Nyaga Wambora and 32 others – vs - the County Assembly of Embu, Constitutional Petition No.7 and 8 of 2015 at Embu (consolidated), noted with approval, the position as restated in the Supreme Court of India in State of Rajasthan – vs - Union of India (1977) 3 SCC 592, where the judge observed as follows- “This Court has never abandoned its constitutional function as the final judge of the constitutionality of all acts purported to be done under the authority of the Constitution. It has not refused to determine questions either of fact or law so long as it has found itself possessed of the power to do it and the cause of justice to be capable of being vindicated by its actions. However, the court cannot assume unto itself powers the Constitution lodges elsewhere or undertake tasks entrusted by the Constitution to other departments of State which may be better equipped to perform them. These discharged 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 Services,Senate."
}