Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1521680,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1521680/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 240,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Sen. Oketch Gicheru",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "want to vary it because there is wisdom in that leadership. That is why you have leadership in the House. What will guide my judgment in supporting or not supporting this Motion? First is just guidance from the Senate Majority Leader whether the decisions of this magnitude made in this House merit as functus officio ? Under Article 125 of the Constitution, where the Powers and Privileges Committee comes and pronounces itself, then we make a judicious decision. Fundamentally, it means that that decision is made in the context of a High Court of Kenya. That is what the Constitution gives us the power to do. There was evidence that was required when the hon. Senator sat in the Powers and Prerogatives Committee, which then falls within Article 125. So, the question in layman's language is, once a court has made its decision, can it eat that decision? Can it come back and vary that decision? If I am guided so as a judge, I can talk about it. Secondly, the matter was further escalated by the hon. Senator to the judicial courts. We are a quasi-judicial House, but the matter was related to the courts and the courts had a pronouncement on this matter. I know that on the side of the Senate Minority side, the Senate Minority Leader is a former judge. So again, my wisdom cannot in any way dispute whatever guidance he would give us on our side as a Minority. Mr. Temporary Speaker, Sir, when the matter was escalated to court, and the court made a pronouncement on it, can we vary the pronouncement of that court. Can we say that even though the court pronounced itself that the Senator must serve the entire suspension, is this still our decision, or is this still the decision of the court? Lastly, it is on the very important issue that the Senator of Nairobi City County, Sen. Sifuna has raised. The matter we are looking at here was not about the Senator. It was about the Senator vis-a-vis senior staff members who are serving the institution of the Senate and Parliament. We should not have opened that window of apology after the court’s decision. Does that apology, in his assessment, mean withdrawal of all the allegations against those members of the staff to the extent that we need to be judicious, not only just the Senator, but also to the staff members who were involved? So, would that mean, by extension, that there would be a requirement, whether a pseudo-requirement or an active requirement on the side of the Senator, to withdraw all those allegations that were found to be baseless? Then that way, it would be a House that is fair to both parties that are involved. It might not be a question of just voting, Senate Majority Leader, I think that this is just not a question that we might just discuss on the Floor of the House, but also might need wisdom on a small kamukunji perhaps. Where we can discuss and see how we also maintain and protect the sanctity of the House because we are setting a precedent for future generations."
}