HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept
{
"id": 483952,
"url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/483952/?format=api",
"text_counter": 53,
"type": "other",
"speaker_name": "",
"speaker_title": "",
"speaker": null,
"content": "my view or in the view of the Senate is a travesty or a triviality and do not merit the time of the Senate. Mr. Speaker, Sir, when I was appointed to the Committee, my perusal in the first reading of the impeachment proceedings and documentation provided to me, upon taking my mandate as a Member of the Special Committee pointed to a coordinated and pre- meditated scheme by the County Government and the County Assembly of Machakos to witch-hunt and punish, through impeachment, the Deputy Governor. In this analysis, I find myself incapable, either in conscience or political pragmatism to valid such a scheme. In my perusal, it was evident that most of the affidavits from the County Executive Members were sworn on the 9th July, 2014 on the same day the County Cabinet had purported to fix the date to discuss allegations of misconduct against the Deputy Governor. I have sifted through these affidavits by a couple of county executives who were listed in this bundle that was submitted by the County Government of Machakos and almost all of them, to the last man, hon. George Kioko Luca, hon. (Dr.) Sunil, hon. Priscillah Mueni Mukunya, hon. Ruth Nduku Mutua, hon. Joshua Nthenge Musili and others were signed on a date when they had decided that they were going to commence proceedings towards the misconduct of the Deputy Governor. Where there were no proceedings either in law or before any authority, why would we be signing or be swearing affidavits unless there was a scheme pre-meditated that did not seek to conclude fully the proceedings that had been initiated by the County Government? Interestingly, the initial agenda to discuss the misconduct of the Deputy Governor was catalyzed by the Deputy Governor’s concern on safety and security he raised in the Cabinet meeting of 7th July, 2014. Ironically, the issues of the safety and security of the Deputy Governor, which constitutes a paramount responsibility of any collegiate--- You do recall that when Sen. Muthama raised the issue of the withdrawal of his security and raised the security of his person and life, this Senate acted in unison to defend and to assert itself. You spoke to that very issue, Mr. Speaker, Sir, that it is not a matter of discretion for Sen. Muthama to have security. Mr. Speaker, Sir, this Cabinet proceeded, and did not even have the courtesy to discuss the issues of the security of the Deputy Governor as evidenced by the minutes of this particular meeting. An agenda instead towards his misconduct substituted the security concerns. These actions point towards malice. Any process convened or initiated on malice can never have any returns apart from malice. I also reasonably believe that it was following this meeting that the scheme to impeach the Deputy Governor was either hatched or put in high gear. In my view, this explains why the affidavits of the members of the County Executive were sworn on 9th July, 2014 and by the admission of one of the County Executive Member on cross-examination during the hearings, she admitted that these affidavits were signed in the Governor’s Office. Mr. Speaker, Sir, the contents of the affidavits were similar. I have this bundle and many of them have a similar style. They start in the same manner, and I ask every Senator, for you to appreciate the gravity of this matter so that this Senate is never again bogged by this type of triviality, I urge you to get these records and read the affidavits one after another and see a pattern of similarity. This lends credence to my considered 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."
}