HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept
{
"id": 1488948,
"url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1488948/?format=api",
"text_counter": 166,
"type": "speech",
"speaker_name": "Hon. (Dr.) Otiende Amollo, SC",
"speaker_title": "",
"speaker": null,
"content": "of removal from office of governors under Article 181. The word used is ‘removal.’ The word ‘Impeachment’ does not appear in Article 181. When you come to Article 150, two words are used. You can remove the Deputy President first under Article 150 1(a). To that extent, the question of removal in Article 150, you can use the same standards in Article 181. Article 150 1 (b) says, or “on Impeachment”. There is no other provision for Impeachment and we have not undertaken an impeachment in this country. For that reason, while the wording might look similar, the principles are different. For removal, for example, under 150 1(a), it is a strict legal process. You have to show and demonstrate that the Deputy President has physical or mental incapacity. However, when it comes to impeachment, it is a different matter. It is more of a political matter. Impeachment is a demonstration of impropriety of unfitness for office, of taking political responsibility. Indeed, in a representative democracy, it is the way of un-voting someone you had voted. Otherwise, you would be having a fresh election to decide should we now remove this person from office. It is too expensive. The fact that you have 82 per cent in the National Assembly voting for impeachment and two-thirds, if it succeeds in this House, you translate it to the millions that it represents. In the National Assembly, 82 per cent translate to about 42 million out of the 50 million Kenyans. That is a significant number. If this House is equally to vote, you translate it to the equivalent number of people it is representing. It is not a heavy matter. If it was any less, it would have been a decision for a single judge. Mr. Speaker, Sir, allow me to address two things, then I sit in terms of substance. One, you have 11 charges. Four of those charges oscillate around one issue, and that is the utterances by the Deputy President. The charge is he made insightful and discriminatory utterances to the effect that only those who voted for the Kenya Kwanza are entitled to resources and positions in Government in Kenya. That is the summary of that charge. That charge is contained in Ground 1, Ground 5, Ground 6 and Ground 10. Mr. Speaker, Sir, I want to submit that if you find even only that one charge to have been satisfied, then I want to implore the Senators to vote ‘yes’ for all those four grounds together. Has it been satisfied? Those utterances are admitted by the Deputy President in the documents before you. The meanings of those words in their variety is known to you and Kenyans. The danger in words is something we know in this country way back in 2007. In our neighbouring country, Rwanda, we know what words did. I heard the lawyers of the Deputy President suggest that he did not take any action. Under the law under Article 10 and 27, you do not have to take any action. Utterances are enough because they can do the very damage that the Constitution intends not to be done. Mr. Speaker, Sir, what is his response to that charge? There are two. The first one is he was exercising free speech. That is the easiest to dismiss. I invite the Senators to look at Article 33 (2)(d) (ii). It is express and it says, freedom of expression cannot include advocacy for discrimination and that is what he was doing. Mr. Speaker, Sir, what is the second defence? That whatever he was saying is contained in the various coalition agreements under the Kenya Kwanza Coalition that 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."
}