Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1408034,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1408034/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 107,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Speaker",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "and 66 incorporate the pronouncements of the court on the threshold for admissibility of grounds for removal of a Cabinet Secretary by requiring that grounds in a Motion must be framed clearly to particularise and disclose a gross violation of the Constitution or other written law; and that such grounds must also state with precision, the provisions of the Constitution or other written law that are alleged to have been grossly violated. Hon. Members, having examined the legal and procedural requirements of processing Special Motions for the removal of persons from office, permit me now to determine whether the proposed Special Motion by the Member for Bumula Constituency is admissible. It is worth noting that Standing Order 47(3)(b) and (e) places an obligation on the Speaker to make a determination on whether any proposed Motion is contrary to the Constitution or contains allegations which the Mover cannot substantiate. As noted earlier, 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. It is exercisable in two instances. Firstly, at the point of the approval of the Special Motion for impeachment by the Speaker and at the point of investigations conducted by the relevant committee. In determining the admissibility of the Motion proposed by the Member, I am required to examine two key issues. The first issue is whether the proposed Motion meets the requirements of the Constitution and Standing Orders as to form and the threshold required to it. The second issue is whether the grounds as contained in the proposed Motion are admissible. On the first issue, I note that from a reading of Article 152(6) of the Constitution and Standing Order 66, a proposed Motion by a Member for the dismissal of a cabinet secretary must be supported by at least one-quarter of all Members of the Assembly. A quarter of all the Members of this Assembly is 87.25. In parliamentary practice, a decimal point is rounded off to a whole number. Consequently, the threshold for initiating a Motion for the dismissal of a cabinet secretary is 88 Members of this House. Standing Order 66 provides that the proposed Motion should be in writing; the proposed Motion should state the grounds and particulars in terms of Article 152(6) of the Constitution upon which the proposed Motion is made. The proposed Motion should be signed by the Member and signed in support by at least one-quarter of all the Members of the Assembly. Looking at the proposed Motion by the Member, I noted that pursuant to Article 152(6) of the Constitution and Standing Order 66, the Member has stated the grounds and given the particulars under which he proposes the dismissal of the Cabinet Secretary. Additionally, pursuant to Standing Order 66, the proposed Motion is also in writing and signed by the Hon. Member. Further, under Article 152(6) of the Constitution and Standing Order 66, the Hon. Member has attached a list of the signatures of 110 Members of the National Assembly who have signed the Motion in support."
}