HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept
{
"id": 1483328,
"url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1483328/?format=api",
"text_counter": 90,
"type": "speech",
"speaker_name": "The Speaker (",
"speaker_title": "",
"speaker": null,
"content": "resolution in regard to the impeachment of the petitioner, governor, Kericho county government.” Counsel, therefore, urged the Senate to find that in light of the court order, the matter should not proceed before the Senate.” On this matter, the counsel for the county assembly indicated that the county assembly objected to this preliminary issue, stating that the matter did not fit within the definition of a preliminary objection. That it was not a pure question of law, but rather a question of fact. Counsel stated that the county assembly in its replying affidavit, had provided evidence and would be making submissions to the effect that no such court orders existed. The third preliminary issue is related to the matter of whether two-thirds threshold required under Section 33 of the County Government Act, Cap 265 of the laws of Kenya and the Kericho County Standing Orders were met. It was a submission of the counsel for the governor that the threshold had not been made as 31 rather than 32 MCA voted in favour of the Motion for the proposed removal from office, by impeachment, of the Governor of Kericho County. Counsel argued that on that basis alone, the impeachment proceedings could not proceed. Counsel for the county assembly took a different view on this matter. First, arguing that this was not a matter that could be disposed of as a preliminary matter and that the county assembly intended to adduce evidence to prove its case on this particular matter. Therefore, counsel, argued that it was necessary for this matter to be canvassed within the context of the hearing so that the evidence will be presented and tested in cross-examination. A number of hon. Senators spoke to these matters in the morning sitting and, this afternoon’s sitting. Now, hon. Senators, ladies and gentlemen, arising from the preliminary issues and having dispensed with those relating to the submission of documentation, the following are the issues that require determination and further guidance. (1) Whether in light of the court order, if any, the Senate is able to proceed with the hearing of the proposed removal from office, by impeachment, of the Governor of Kericho County. (2) Whether as contended by the governor, the threshold of two-thirds required at the county assembly was not me. (3) Whether the request by the county assembly for arrangements to be made to secure the anonymity of one of the witnesses who will be testifying for the county assembly, should be allowed. Now, hon. Senators, ladies and gentlemen, it is noteworthy that only two of these three issues need to be determined in the first instance. Namely, whether, in light of the court order, if any, the Senate is able to proceed with the hearing of the proposed removal from office by the impeachment of the governor of Kericho County. Secondly, whether as contended by the governor, the threshold of two-thirds required at the county assembly was not met. The third issue on whether the request by the county assembly for arrangements to be made to secure the anonymity of one of the witnesses, who will be testifying for the 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 and AudioServices, Senate."
}