HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept
{
"id": 1589601,
"url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1589601/?format=api",
"text_counter": 137,
"type": "speech",
"speaker_name": "Mr. Boniface Mawira",
"speaker_title": "",
"speaker": null,
"content": "witness, on what they have deponed under oath in an affidavit. At the opportune time, we will be praying to cross-examine those witnesses in order to establish the truth. The further question that arises, as I conclude, is the Clerk of the Assembly, under the County Assembly Services Act, is required to render expert, non-partisan advice to the Speaker and to the House on procedural matters and on all other matters that are before the House. We will be craving for an opportunity to cross-examine the Clerk on all the issues that counsel has alluded to, in trying to persuade you, Hon. Speaker and the House, that you dispose of the issue of whether there was a sitting and whether there was forgery of the HANSARD at this preliminary trial. A mini trial that the Governor requested for - a trial within a trial - is not necessary if the issues that are to be canvassed during that mini trial, can be established in the full trial. The issues of the sitting of the Assembly, alleged fraud and alleged forgery are matters that belong to the full trial. It is for the Governor to prove that, indeed, there was forgery because he is the one who alleges forgery of the HANSARD report and that there was no sitting. It is for the Government to prove, through evidence, that is going to be tested by way of cross-examination at the trial. Therefore, reducing that issue - and it is a very germane issue - of the cheating and alleged forgery to a matter that can be handled at this stage without leading evidence, is not only inappropriate, but against the best interest of justice. It is because the County Assembly will not have the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses that are being called and whose affidavits have been referenced to by the Governor's council in making that preliminary point. In conclusion, it is only after a lengthy and a drawn-out hearing in the main trial that all these issues that are couched as preliminary objections, can be sufficiently addressed. I will say one last thing on that issue of the court order before I sit and give a few minutes to my colleague, Mr. Muriuki. The court order that the Governor has alluded to, is not to be looked at just as a standalone issue. It is essentially an attack on the jurisdiction of the House to hear the impeachment Motion that this House is seized of. The question, as I said before, is if a court whose jurisdiction is challenged--- In fact, Mr. Speaker, Sir, I was in those proceedings and the jurisdiction of the court was challenged. The court has not rendered a decision on a preliminary objection that was filed, but the court proceeded to grant the orders that were granted. Can a court whose jurisdiction is challenged and which court, the apex court in the Republic together with the Court of Appeal, have held that, that court is bereft of jurisdiction, take away the jurisdiction of this House, which is constitutional in nature? The jurisdiction of this House to oversight county assemblies is constitutional in nature. Can a court acting in excess of jurisdiction take away the constitutional mandate of this House? As Mr. Nyamodi quoted just before I took the stand, the decision on the validity of that court order comes into play. There is no need for that court order to be set aside. The moment that court order was given by a court that has disregarded binding precedence from the Supreme Court, from the Court of Appeal and acted in excess of jurisdiction, that order is a nullity in law. 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."
}