Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1589567,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1589567/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 103,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Mr. Elisha Ongoya",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": ". It says- “Parliamentary Privilege and Immunity and the Principle of Separation of Powers do not shield the county assemblies and the Senate from court orders. When court orders are issued, they are binding on the County Assembly and the Senate and must be complied with. Failure to comply with court orders may result in the invalidation of the entire process of impeachment by the courts.” The second subtitle is “ Participate Actively in Court Proceedings ”. This Senate has communicated to us through this manual that ignoring court orders against the County Assembly or the Senate is not the solution. If court orders are issued against a County Assembly or the Senate, the most preferable option is to participate actively in the court proceedings. The County Assembly or the Senate may apply for review of the court orders or appeal to the next court for variation or the setting aside of the court orders. That is the manual that this House has published as late as this year. Allow me to make the following submissions then. The existence of the orders of court I am going to refer to is not a disputed fact. It is a fact admitted by the County Assembly in their written submissions. The existence of these orders is not a contested issue. It not being contested, it follows therefore that this Senate can proceed right away to resolve the question of the impact of those orders without investigating whether they exist or not. This is because between the parties, it is an admitted fact. Allow me to begin by referring this Senate to an earlier ruling of the Speaker of the then only House of Parliament, which was the National Assembly, before the new Constitution. This was the ruling by Speaker Kenneth Otiato Marende on the question of nominations of Chief Justice, Attorney General, Director of Public Prosecutions and Controller of Budget. That ruling was made on the 17th of February 2011. You will find that ruling starting at page 165 of Volume No.IV of the Governor's documents. The relevant Part I will refer to in the interest of time is at page 168 of that volume; Volume No.IV of the Governor's response. At page 168 is a continuation of 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."
}