Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1485473,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1485473/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 18,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Kingi",
    "speaker_title": "The Speaker",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "potentially come for adjudication in the Senate and that no such possibility exists into the current matter with Hon. James Orengo, SC, as the Governor of Siaya County. In his rejoinder, Mr. Njiru, Learned Counsel, submitted that Hon. Orengo, SC, is the serving Governor of Siaya County and, therefore, a full-time State officer and by that fact is in violation of Article 77 of the Constitution. Further, Mr. Njiru submitted that prejudice is not one of the applicable tests under Article 77 and Section 26 of the Leadership and Integrity Act, but that the only applicable test is whether or not Hon. Orengo is engaged in gainful employment. He argued that the National Assembly had not proved that Hon. Orengo was providing probono services in this matter. Hon. Senators, Article 77(1) of the Constitution provides that “a full-time State Officer shall not participate in any other gainful employment”. Further, Section 26 of the Leadership and Integrity Act provides that “a full-time State Officer shall not participate in any other gainful employment” while Section 26(2) defines “gainful employment” as – “Work that a person can pursue and perform for money or other form of compensation or remuneration which is inherently incompatible with the responsibilities of the state office or which results in the impairment of the judgment of the state officer in the execution of the functions of the state office or results in conflict of interest in terms of Section 16.” Having considered the matter, it is important to state that a state officer must inspire confidence. However, it is trite law that he who asserts must prove. In this regard, I wish to observe that the Learned Counsel for the Deputy President did not adduce evidence to prove and demonstrate the allegation of gainful employment. In fact, it is somewhat surprising that Counsel attempted to shift the onus of proving gainful employment to the National Assembly. That argument is untenable. As to the Ruling of the Senate that barred Hon. Osoro from appearing for the County Assembly of Kisii in the impeachment proceedings of the Deputy Governor of the Kisii County Government, it is clear that what was objectionable was that Hon. Osoro was not only a Member of Parliament for a constituency in the same county whose Deputy Governor’s impeachment was in issue, but was also a high ranking Member of the leadership of the National Assembly, and by extension, of the same Parliament before which the impeachment was being undertaken. It was ruled that in these circumstances, it was clear that in the minds of the public, the fine distinctions of the bicameral Parliament would be lost and their confidence in the impeachment process would entirely be undermined. In the same breath, as rightfully contended by Counsel for the Deputy President, it is true that in both Article 77 of the Constitution and Section 26 of the Leadership and Integrity Act, no test of prejudice is expressly provided for. It, therefore, follows that both the contention of the Counsel for the Deputy President that his side would be prejudiced by the appearance of James Orengo, SC, and the rebuttal by the National Assembly that no prejudice will be occasioned are moot. Hon. Senators, ladies and gentlemen, having analysed the preliminary objection raised and for the reasons I have given, the preliminary objection raised on 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."
}