HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept
{
"id": 1589600,
"url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1589600/?format=api",
"text_counter": 136,
"type": "speech",
"speaker_name": "Mr. Boniface Mawira",
"speaker_title": "",
"speaker": null,
"content": "Mr. Speaker, Sir, Section 5 of the Judicial Act provides for the hierarchy of laws in our Republic. The Constitution is at the top. The apex court in the Republic as per our Constitution is the Supreme Court. The Court of Appeal is next. The decision of the Supreme Court as per Article 163(5) of the Constitution, are binding on the High Court. The same goes for the decision from the Court of Appeal. The question, therefore, is: can these honourable House be stopped by a court that has disregarded binding precedent? Can this court be stopped by a court that itself is lacking in jurisdiction? Our answer to that question is that you should proceed unhindered, undeterred and render a decision or determination on the impeachment Motion on the merits, upon hearing the witnesses that are to be called by the respective parties. The danger is, if this honourable House was to terminate the proceedings at this stage, then it would set a very dangerous precedent. That dangerous precedent is that all that a governor would need to do is to move to court and obtain an order, either quashing the impeachment proceedings before they even begin or stopping this House from considering the impeachment Motion before it is even seized with that impeachment Motion. Therefore, the Senate would have abdicated its role as a defender of devolution and its oversight mechanism in the removal from office proceedings of county governance. Mr. Speaker, Sir, as you deliberate on that issue, we sound that caution that whatever is established today, will have an implication on future impeachment processes that will be brought before this House. On the second ground, Counsel for the Governor has referred to affidavits by the Clerk of the Assembly and the AP Commander of Isiolo County. All these affidavits have been referred to, to persuade you that there was no sitting by the Assembly on the 26th June, 2025, when the impeachment Motion was approved by the County Assembly. The question that arises, is whether the contents of those affidavits are to be believed without testing the evidence of those witnesses under oath. So, the way I see it, the Governor is asking for a full trial. By making a reference to those affidavits, it must be taken that the Governor concedes that, that preliminary objection is not based on a pure point of law that can be canvassed by counsel without reference to affidavits by witnesses. The reason we file affidavits before you is to give advance notice to the other party, so that the other party can prepare on how to test the truthfulness, credibility and veracity of those witnesses, when they take the stand to give evidence before this House. Mr. Speaker, Sir, the contents of those affidavits, the depositions that are contained in those affidavits, would have to be tested by way of cross-examination of the witnesses for this honourable House to make a conclusion on that question as to whether there was a sitting. The same goes for the HANSARD that is impugned by the Clerk of the County Assembly on oath. With regard to the question of the alleged forgery of the HANSARD, all the Counsel of the Governor has done, is to make reference to an affidavit by a witness. Counsel was submitting on a preliminary on what is supposed to be a preliminary point of law. It is no longer a preliminary point of law, if counsel does not restrict himself and now takes the posture of the witness and testifies on behalf of 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."
}