Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 436531,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/436531/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 92,
    "type": "other",
    "speaker_name": "",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "cannot vote on the matter considering that there is no other Senate in this Republic. We would have entertained a thought that the County Assembly of Embu would not have considered the matter and yet there is no other Embu County Assembly. In our Report, we have made it very clear that there can be no other Senate until the next elections. So, any other matter that will come as envisaged in the law even if it is from the same county in the next three months will still be dealt with by this House. Therefore, we satisfied ourselves that this Senate must continue acting impartially when dealing with such matters. This House has the jurisdiction. Our Committee had the jurisdiction to deal with the matter. Why is there impeachment in our Constitution and in our Acts of Parliament? Impeachment is not a criminal charge. Impeachment is a governance tool. It is what is called, in a parliamentary system, a “vote of no confidence.” This is the equivalent of a vote of no confidence in a presidential system. Our kind of governance refers to this as an impeachment. This is not meant to declare that Governor Wambora is a criminal. That process is out. It is not meant to declare the innocence of Governor Wambora in terms of personal liability. It is meant to deal with his position as a leader to correct the ills of governance. Therefore, it is important to point out that the Senate of the Republic of Kenya is the right place to deal with that matter. I would like to quote the judgment of the courts where Wambora was ably represented. The Senate was not there. I want to commend the Judges, Justices Ong’undi, Kithua, and Olao. In paragraph 245 of that judgment, they say; “We must to some extent agree with Mr. Ng’ang’a that the County Assembly and the Senate are the best judge to determine whether the charges presented against the first petitioner, who is the Governor, were in accordance to Article 181 of the Constitution. The Constitution has set out the power of judging the merits of the charges to those two Houses. It would, thus, be wrong, in our view, for this court to question the merits of the decision of the county assembly and the Senate.” Mr. Speaker, Sir, the only competent institution to look at the merits of an impeachment process of a Governor under our Constitution and our Acts of Parliament is this House. Despite the fact that we were not represented in that matter, the court correctly observed that. In fact, the court quoted a judgment of Nancy Baraza versus the Judicial Service Commission and they said; “It is not for this court or the Commission to find that the allegations made against the petitioner do not amount to gross misconduct. In fact, according to Prof. Yash Pal Ghai, Constitution of Kenya and the Instrument for Change cited by the petitioner, whether a conduct is gross or not will depend on the matter as exposed by the facts. Which facts? It is the duty of the tribunal to establish that.” The facts as to whether there is a gross violation of the Constitution or as to whether there are grounds for impeaching the Governor; that is left to this House. The The electronic version of the Senate Hansard Report is for information purposes only. A certified version of this Report can be obtained from the Hansard Editor, Senate."
}