Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1484051,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1484051/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 144,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Mr. Ndegwa Njiru",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "submissions made by Counsel in as far as the gainful employment in these proceedings is concerned. Secondly, he is here as the Governor of Siaya County, not as a Senator. As such, the Petition No.3 of 2013 is distinguishable from the fact that he is here as a serving governor. That is what Section 26, subsection (2), speaks to. It is also equally the provisions of Article 77 of the Constitution. Further to that, Mr. Speaker, Sir, the test of prejudice is a creation by Counsel. It is not the one that Section 26(2), and Article 77 speaks to. The only test is gainful employment. Unless that one is rebutted, the legal presumption unless it is rebutted, is that he is here for a main purpose, to earn a living. I leave that to the House to make a determination. Permit me once more to move the House with my last and final application, as far as these proceedings are in issue. Mr. Speaker, Sir, on the 8th of October, 2024, this House was served with a resolution from the National Assembly by the Speaker of the National Assembly, via the letter that the Speaker of the Senate referred to. That letter appears at page 547 to 548 of volume five of the National Assembly's bundle of documents. Mr. Speaker, Sir, we were then served with two sets of documents, an affidavit, dated the 11th of October, deponed by one Peterson Jomo Muchira. Our objection is that the affidavit did not form part of the documents that were submitted by the Speaker of the National Assembly to the Speaker of the Senate. It is our argument that this is new evidence. Further to that, we were equally served with a bundle of documents from the National Assembly, which is labeled as volume 8A, also indicated as responses from various Government agencies. Again, this is new evidence that does not find itself at pages 547 to 548 of the bundle of documents submitted to you or to this honourable House by the Speaker. The prejudice is that our response was exclusively limited to the documents that we were served with. Further to that, it is our argument and our application that these documents will prejudice our case in the sense that they will violate our rights to a fair hearing. This is trial by ambush by the National Assembly. I refer to the findings of this House in the Hon. Governor Sonko in a ruling delivered by the Speaker of this House on 17th December that barred the County Assembly of Nairobi from introducing any new evidence. It has been the tradition of this House to protect all the parties that appear before it, so that justice will not only be done, but also seen to be done. We move this House to have these documents expunged from record and for the National Assembly be barred from relying on these documents. Mr. Speaker, Sir, if these documents will be admitted, we shall suffer prejudice in the sense that we shall have no ability or we shall have been denied an opportunity to respond to the same. We urge you to hold that these documents is new evidence and rely on Rule 19 of this House. Noting that the rules guiding these proceedings today do not provide for how to deal with new evidence as and when the same is brought to the attention of the House. 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."
}