Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1589571,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1589571/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 107,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Mr. Elisha Ongoya",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "highlight that the parties before you are parties in that suit. They are, therefore, bound by the decision of that court. I will just go straight page 27. You will find that paragraph 28 of that Ruling where the Judge observes as follows- “It is important to note that there was no complaint raised when the first orders were issued by the court in respect of the Motion dated 10th June, 2025 that was to be debated on 17th June 2025.” In fact, the sentiments by the Mover of that Motion, the contemnor, vindicates the court as he has in his affidavit, conceded that the Motion was defective in substance and marred with procedural irregularities; the very grounds that the Petitioner has sought to rely on. The Mover of this Motion went and told the court that, it is true that the orders you gave first were right because the Motion I had tabled was marred. It was defective in substance and marred with procedural irregularities. Allow me to then take you to paragraphs 45, 46, and 47 of that Ruling at page 35 of Volume No.4. In paragraph 45, the Judge says- “Therefore, it is the finding of this court that the Motion dated 18th June, 2025 and debated by the First Respondent on 26th June, 2025 was in contravention of the conservatory orders of this court issued on 25th June, 2025. Hence, the resolution arising therefrom is null and void.” Once an act is declared null and void, it is of no legal consequence. A court of law has found that this Motion which has now been brought here before you Senators, is null and void. It is of no legal consequence. Paragraph 46 has stated that the resolution has evidently been submitted to the Speaker of the Senate. It is thus upon the Senate, once informed of the orders herein, which I am now doing, to determine if it will proceed to handle the said resolution, thus abating a blatant disregard of the rule of law or the respect of orders. The matter at hand calls for a stand to be taken by the constitutional organs involved. What they choose to do will have set a precedent on the necessity for compliance with court orders. It is a choice between anarchy and constitutionalism. Distinguished Senators, the judge is saying this; I am aware and I cannot stop you from doing your work. He is saying; proceed and go to the Senate. To my mind, that was an extremely wise move by the Judge considering historical pleas for there to be an institutional committee between institutions and to respect the powers of each organ. However, the judge is also saying; you decide for yourselves how you will proceed. I have made a finding that that Motion is null and void and of no effect. Mr. Speaker, Sir, I will contradistinguish this with other scenarios that the other side will draw your attention to shortly. The judge has not issued a conservatory order against the Senate. The judge has made a determination on the validity of the Motion purportedly debated and purportedly approved by the County Assembly of Isiolo. The Judge has made a determination that it is null and void, and of no legal consequence. You are being invited to engage with this Motion on that strength of fact and on the strength of the finding by the Judge that the Motion as approved, and as brought before you, is null and void, and of no legal effect. We, therefore, invite you to introspect and make this determination. When the impeachment law calls upon you to determine a 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."
}