Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1480674,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1480674/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 329,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Suba North, ODM",
    "speaker_title": "Hon. Millie Odhiambo-Mabona",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "themselves that they are. In my view, they are not necessary in a quasi-judicial processes like this one. It is like saying that the Judiciary needs public participation in making its decision. Having said that, I also want to speak to the issue of timelines. Parliament has spoken very clearly on the issue of timelines under Standing Order 64(2). In summary, if you read the Standing Order, there are very strict timelines for a Motion like this one. In setting the period, the National Assembly was guided by the need to preserve the overarching constitutional principle of acting without unreasonable delay. The special Motion for removal from office by impeachment of the Deputy President was, therefore, processed in accordance with the timeline set out under Standing Order 64. In buttressing the necessity for expedited consideration of special Motions, previous Speakers of the National Assembly of Kenya expressed themselves on the question of timelines for considering special Motions by the House when the special Motions were filed proposing the removal by impeachment of the then Cabinet Secretaries, Hon. Anne Waiguru, Hon. James Macharia, Hon. Kaimenyi and more recently, Hon. Mithika Linturi. In all the foregoing instances, the Speakers emphasised the need to dispose of a special Motion as soon as is practicable to remove the anxiety of hangman's noose from the neck of a state officer proposed for impeachment. Hon. Speaker, you have seen the level of anxiety that the Deputy President has undergone. Indeed, when he was giving a press statement yesterday, he was almost in tears. That is why the House has to hasten the process so that the emotional turmoil is lessened when one goes through this process. The Clerk of the National Assembly published advertisements on the 2nd, 3rd and 4th of October 2024 and invited written submissions via hand delivery, post, or email until the 5th of October 2024. All these were also advertised on the 4th of October and extended to the 5th of October in each constituency. To assist in this exercise, a public view template was made available to the public in both English and Kiswahili to guide submissions. On 3rd and 4th of October 2024, 40,000 copies of the public view templates were also circulated as newspaper pull-outs. This template was designated to provide clarity and precision in responses whether for or against the Motion, to supplement other means of public input and to ensure both qualitative and quantitative feedback was captured as it had been directed by the courts in the past. I want to indicate that many means were used, including radio; television stations; X, formerly Twitter; Facebook; and others, to publicise this process. The public was invited to submit views either in support or in opposition of the special Motion or to offer other views. I wish to laud Kenyans for their growing consciousness on their civic rights and duties. People participated in various ways as was witnessed both on electronic and social media. Many Kenyans participated very expressively. Many of us saw people expressing their views in many ways, some I will explain later. However, by nature of news- making, we saw the areas where the views were expressive, but much less in the areas where the views were not that expressive. I want to laud the parliamentary team. If you look at the Report, they captured photos of members of the public giving their views in constituencies peacefully. However, I want to repeat that by the very nature of news-making, what we saw were the dramatic scenes."
}