Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1483256,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1483256/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 18,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Sen. (Prof.) Tom Odhiambo Ojienda, SC",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "Mr. Speaker, Sir, I wish to address a few issues on the preliminary objection that has been raised before this House, this morning. There are two issues: One touches on the propriety of these proceedings and whether or not the proceedings before the Assembly under Article 181 and Section 33 of the County Governments Act are a continuum. In law, the process that defines the commencement of impeachment proceedings - which is instructive to note - has now been settled in terms of what constitutes a process. Mr. Speaker, Sir, the Senate Majority Leader, Sen. Cheruiyot, has referred to two decisions that have informed prior impeachments in this House; the impeachment of Hon. Ferdinand Waititu and of the then Governor of Nairobi City, Mike Sonko. Both were my clients at some point. Therefore, I had the advantage of litigating on impeachment. I will proceed to the first objection. The proceedings of this House are cushioned from any other processes. When this House sits to hear impeachment proceedings, we sit as a court. Since all the issues will be canvassed here, what was raised by the counsel for the governor as preliminary objections do not strictly in law qualify as preliminary objections because the House has been asked to look at various exhibits and to see various videos. That is the province of evidence. On that account alone, the preliminary objections will collapse. Since there are two interpretations of the whole number in the Nkaduda case and in other decisions, this Senate would have to sit and consider all the submissions from parties to arrive at a proper finding as a jury at the end of this process and when witnesses are called. The magical number of 31 and 31.3, that the whip Sen. (Dr.) Khalwale was referring to as res ipsa loquitur is not quite. The facts are not obvious because the interpretation and the tilting of all numbers between 31 and 32 are matters of evidence and presentation before this House. We have seen from the submissions by the County Assembly and from the other side. I must say that I have had an advantage of litigating the question of continuum in the case of Marete Kauma and Hon. Nyaga Wambora, which was Supreme Court Petition No.32 of 2014. The court, in summary, in dealing with Hassan Joho, Saeed Shabal, and other decisions, Raila Odinga and in citing the National Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Act, Section 12, insulates this House from any contempt proceedings. Two, it also insulates this House and other institutions from any claim of interference by other institutions. The Supreme Court in that matter, defining the independence of institutions as a primacy that must be considered and the Supreme Court holding our petition in 2014, on the basis that this House cannot be injuncted by a court. The orders issued by Justice Sergon cannot therefore stop the proceedings of this House. Mr. Speaker---"
}