Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1589100,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1589100/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 141,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Kingi",
    "speaker_title": "The Speaker",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "(ii) The law contemplates that impeachment proceedings can only be commenced and/or sustained before the Senate, upon the passage of a valid resolution by a county assembly in compliance with the procedures laid down in the law governing the removal of the Governor from office. However, in this instance, the County Assembly of Isiolo did not sit on 18th June, 2025 and 26th June, 2025, to table, debate, pass and/or vote on the Motion for removal of the Governor from office by way of impeachment. (b) That the purported HANSARD reports of 18th June and 26th June, 2025 relied upon and furnished to the Senate by the County Assembly were forged, concocted, manufactured and engineered at a venue outside the County Assembly Chambers and further that there exist no votes and proceedings, voice transcripts and video recordings to corroborate the HANSARD reports. Counsel invited the Senate to conduct a preliminary inquiry by way of a trial-within a trial in limine, with a view of establishing the authenticity of the HANSARD reports presented by the County Assembly in support of the impeachment proceedings. (c) That the purported impeachment Motion as presented by the County Assembly of Isiolo fails to meet the criteria and legal threshold under Article 181 of the Constitution, Section 33 of the County Governments Act, the Standing Orders of Isiolo County Assembly and the Standing Orders of the Senate. (d) That the impeachment Motion forwarded by the County Assembly of Isiolo is a sham, null and void and of no legal consequence to warrant admissibility, interrogation or any other action of the Senate hence the same should be struck out in limine . In response to the preliminary objections raised by the Advocate for the Governor, the firm of Alex & Boniface Advocates LLP, advocates for the County Assembly of Isiolo stated in writing- (a) That the preliminary objections raised by the Governor do not meet the threshold of a pure point of law as established by the time-honoured case of Mukisa BiscuitManufacturing Co Ltd vs West End Distributors (1969) EA 696. (b) That with regard to the first preliminary objection, the question of court orders that seek to prevent the Senate from fulfilling its constitutional duties has been settled by the Supreme Court of Kenya in Mate & another vs Wambora & another [2017] KESC 1(KLR) and the Court of Appeal in Mwangaza v County Assembly of Meru & another;Council of Governors (Interested Party) [2023] KECA 1599 (KLR) whereby the two courts held that courts lack jurisdiction and are forbidden from interfering with the constitutional mandate of county assemblies and the Senate. (c) That on the same question, the Speaker of the Senate recently ruled during the impeachment proceedings of the former Deputy President, that any injunction interfering with the work of Parliament has no effect on Parliament in the exercise of its constitutional functions. (d) That, consequently, the Senate through the Speaker of the Senate ought to dismiss the preliminary objection and proceed unabetted, unfettered and unhindered in line with its established precedents affirmed by both the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal. (e) That, in respect to the second preliminary objection (whether there was a sitting of the County Assembly to table, debate, pass and or vote on the Motion for removal of 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."
}