GET /api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1589250/?format=api
HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept
{
"id": 1589250,
"url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1589250/?format=api",
"text_counter": 291,
"type": "speech",
"speaker_name": "Sen. Ali Roba",
"speaker_title": "",
"speaker": null,
"content": "Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Sir. I will obey the fact that the time given to us is very short. The issue that is to be determined by the Senate is the impeachment of the governor. Justice can only be arrived at if we look at the substance of the case to its logical conclusion other than killing the case before it even starts. Listening to this case, the sad point is that Isiolo County is at a very desperate situation and it does not matter whether the governor is impeached or not. The situation will not improve because of lawlessness that has prevailed in that county. I see no harm with the Senate of Kenya, just like any other court, listening to the substance of the case, despite the fact that preliminary objection have been raised, then make a determination after all the evidence have been presented and processed. What we are trying to do is to kill the case before it even starts yet the same issues will be brought forth in the substance of the case when we debate. This is not about whether the governor can be impeached or not. It is on whether the Senate can listen to the case exhaustively then make a determination from an informed point of view. It should be able to ascertain that this case has been substantiated or not on the basis of the evidence that will be presented before us. The issues that have been shared will come to life with more evidence. It could even give a very decisive position for us to make serious reference to the evidence produced by the county assembly or the counsel for the governor. I oppose this Motion and seek to convince my colleagues that we are better off determining this case after listening to the substance of the case, exhaustively, to its logical conclusion. I oppose."
}