Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1483580,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1483580/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 186,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Mr. Elias Mutuma",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "I note that the counsel has sought to rely on Rules 14 and 30 of your Rules here, to make an assertion that the decision on the two PO lies with the Speaker. We beg to differ on the following reasons. First, today the Senate sits not as a legislative House, but as a quasi-judicial body. So, any decision to be made must be made in your capacity as a quasi-judicial body. So, the question then is; who is sitting to hear the matter of impeachment of the governor? Is it the Speaker or an individual Senator? My summation is that it is the House that is seeking to listen and give a determination on the question of the impeachment of a governor. A judicial authority is usually aimed at settling a dispute between two parties. There are two ways of making that determination; the first on is on a technicality or on a preliminary basis. The second is through hearing on the merits of the case and making a determination. Either way, that decision can only come from the fact finder, from the judge, from the jury. So, the invitation that the Speaker - sitting in his capacity as a Speaker - can make this determination. This means that the decision of impeaching a governor or not impeaching a governor shall have been made by the Speaker alone who does not have the legal mandate to listen individually to an issue pertaining impeachment of a governor. On that basis then, I invite my learned friend, Mr. Njenga, to take you through the merits of the two objections."
}