Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1407233,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1407233/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 157,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Kikuyu, UDA",
    "speaker_title": "Hon. Kimani Ichung’wah",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": " Thank you, Hon. Speaker. Indeed, you have captured it very well. For the benefit of Hon. Otiende Amollo’s understanding, I used my example and that of Hon. Jack Wamboka. The same way Hon. Jack Wamboka has presented newspaper articles and media reports is the same way one cannot present such gossip columns. My argument is that there lacks particulars or precision on the gross violation of the Constitution. Hon. Jack Wamboka has completely failed to show us that. This Motion is a decoy to derail the substantive inquiry that was brought before this House by a Committee of this House. I humbly submit that I find this Motion as a decoy to make sure that we hide those who are ultimately culpable by derailing the Departmental Committee on Agriculture and Livestock from doing its work. I encourage its Members to get to the bottom of this fertiliser issue and ensure that the inquiry pinpoints to us those who are ultimately culpable. If I were Hon. Jack Wamboka, I would have been patient and waited for the Departmental Committee on Agriculture and Livestock to tell us which organisation or state officers are culpable including the Cabinet Secretaries and the Principal Secretaries. Should the Departmental Committee on Agriculture and Livestock find the Cabinet Secretaries, Principal Secretaries and those at the National Cereals and Produce Board (NCPB) culpable, we have a duty and obligation to the country to hold them to account. Otherwise, as it is, Hon. Wamboka has completely failed. Finally, this Motion seeks to remove the Cabinet Secretary on the grounds that there were serious reasons to believe that he has committed a crime under national law. This ground requires Hon. Jack Wamboka to have attached evidence of conviction or judgment made against the accused person. He has failed to do so. As Hon. Owen Baya pointed out, he has gone to great lengths to quote cases that this House considered during the vetting and approval of Hon. Mithika Linturi as the Cabinet Secretary. That is a matter that is already spent and therefore Hon. Jack Wamboka cannot take the House back to relook into those cases. May I remind him that when the Cabinet Secretary appeared before the Committee, he said he had 32 court cases, some civil, that he was battling. The Committee, including the Member for Bumula, approved his appointment as the Cabinet Secretary. How then do you retract your steps or call the House to retract its steps? As I conclude, the mover of this Motion, as courageous as he thought he was, has completely failed the House. He has failed to show us his precision with the law that he ought to, in line with the Constitution and the Standing Orders. Allow me to conclude by saying, that the Mover of this Motion as courageous as he thought he was, has failed to show precision with the law, in line with the Constitution and Standing Orders. There is no probate of the evidence he has adduced. As I said, the grounds are not particularised in line with Standing Orders 64 and 66. He has quoted newspaper articles which I can also quote about Chairs of Committees and other people, who are said to extort money. Allow me, to plead with this House to defeat this Motion because it will derail the fight against corruption. It is only speaking to the gallery, voters and corruption which we never act on."
}