Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1485557,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1485557/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 102,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Mr. Elisha Ongoya",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "you that at the end of this exercise, let our Constitution, our constitutional democracy and our constitutional order emerge stronger. Allow me to address this House on the defined standard for impeachment of the Deputy President. In a comparable decision by the Supreme Court of Kenya, the case of Hon. Mike Mbuvi Sonko versus the Clerk, County Assembly of Nairobi and others, the Supreme Court observed as follows: “It must, however, be stressed for the avoidance of doubt that the power of impeachment, removal or recall is not one expected to be in constant or frequent exercise. It is only in the face of credible evidence of extraordinary wrongdoing that the conduct of a state officer will be investigated. Even then, only upon sufficient proof of the allegations that the impeachment, removal or recall would be warranted.” Distinguished Senators, we pose two questions that must constantly linger in your minds as you undertake the assignment before you. Number one, we beseech you to bear in mind the question: is there credible evidence of extraordinary wrongdoing on the part of His Excellency, Hon. Rigathi Gachagua, before you? Number two; is there sufficient proof of the allegations levelled against His Excellency, Rigathi Gachagua? Article 150(1)(b) sets out the grounds for removal of a deputy president from office by impeachment. These grounds are: One, gross violation of the constitution or any other law. We emphasise the drafters’ use of the word “gross”. Serious reasons to believe that the Deputy President has committed a crime under national or international law. Again, we emphasise the word “serious” then “gross misconduct”. Summises, conjecture and street rumours cannot pass master. This conduct must be the conduct of the person, the Deputy President. It is sufficiently notorious for this court to take judicial notice of when the late Nderitu Gachagua whose Will is now referred to here, died. You are told to investigate the conduct of His Excellency Rigathi Gachagua at the time around which his brother, His Excellency Governor Nderitu Gachagua, as he then was, died. It is sufficiently notorious that His Excellency Rigathi Gachagua was not Deputy President of the Republic of Kenya. That is not enough. You will peruse the Motion before you with a view to finding which ground in that Motion is sought to be established by these allegations around what may or may not have happened around the time the late Nderitu Gachagua died. You will find absolutely no ground supported by those allegations. Let me disclose here that it is designed to whip your emotions. It has no other purpose. Looking at your oath of office that I have alluded to, there is no room for your emotions to be whipped as the basis of decision making in any act that you engage into in the discharge of your constitutional mandate and responsibilities. What does our Constitution expect of the Mover of the Motion in proceedings of this nature? Our Constitution expects the Mover of the Motion to make allegations of any or all the grounds set out in Article 150(1)(b) of the Constitution. It begins by submitting that it is true the Mover of this Motion has written down some allegations in Volume 1 of the documents from the National Assembly. Secondly, the Mover of the Motion is thereafter expected to supply credible evidence of an extraordinary wrongdoing and sufficient proof of the allegations against the Deputy President. 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."
}