Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1589037,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1589037/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 78,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Mr. Paul Nyamodi",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "It is the County Assembly's position that the Governor cannot capture the Clerk, hold the Clerk and then say that because there was no Clerk, there can be no impeachment. It is apparent in law; you cannot do things like that and seek to benefit from them. Therefore, this Motion must then get to the point where evidence is laid. Sen. Maanzo asked us: What is our rebuttal to the points given? I had stated that a preliminary objection is, in our humble understanding, an issue of law that is raised. There are several factual rebuttals, but we as counsel, in the privileged position we occupy, are unable to testify. Our witnesses have rebutted those things that counsel have said and it is vitally important that this Motion gets to the point where the Senate can hear that testimony from the witnesses themselves. We say, yes, there were sittings that took place and we have said further that from the conduct of the Governor who took those proceedings to court, they acknowledge that the County Assembly did take place. There is an affidavit from a Senior Superintendent of Police in Isiolo, who says that he went and the proceedings in the County Assembly were disrupted. Surely, the Senate must hear from that superintendent of police. We have cross-examination to put to him, so that you make up your mind about what happened in those proceedings, who sabotaged those proceedings and who took part so that you can make up your mind. Yes, it is complex and simple at the same time. Sen. Karungo asked: Do we have audio and video of the HANSARD reports of the day? I will allow my colleague to respond to that question. Sen. (Prof.) Ojienda, SC, sittings were the basis of the orders obtained in the High Court sitting in Meru. Yes, we allege that there is an estoppel. Was there a sitting? Yes, there was a sitting and that is why there is a HANSARD report that the Governor's advocates seek to now criticise at the preliminary stage. If there were no sittings, there would be no HANSARD reports. If there were no sittings, there would then be no foundation for the Governor's advocates to go to court in Meru on the 26th of June and get the orders that they did. That those orders exist from where we sit is proof that those sittings took place. Sen. Mungatana asked: Has the Meru decision been appealed or stayed? Our position is that in respect to the impeachment proceedings, the Supreme Court in the Martin Nyaga Wambora’s matter gave guidance, not just to courts below, but to the county assemblies and to the Senate, as to what to do with orders that were issued, like the ones that were issued by the High Court in Meru in respect of incomplete impeachment proceedings. Those orders, according to the decision of the Supreme Court in Martin Nyaga Wambora - I think the wording used by the Supreme Court is that - ‘they should not then be immediately effected’. That is the guidance that has been given by the Supreme Court. Sen. Cherarkey wanted to know how many clerks are there in the County Assembly of Isiolo. I believe I have attempted to answer that question. Yes, there is a question as to how many clerks there were and who was the Clerk, but that is a matter of evidence. They have their position about who the Clerk was. We have our position about who the clerk was. 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."
}