Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 592530,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/592530/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 73,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Speaker",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "At the preliminary level, the Concise Oxford English Dictionary defines the word “gross” as “blatantly wrong or unacceptable”. The High Court of Kenya, in the case of Martin Nyaga Wambora and 30 others versus the County Assembly of Embu and four others (Embu Constitutional Petition Nos.7 and 8 of 2014) considered the issue of the required threshold for determining what amounts to a gross violation of the Constitution or a gross misconduct in impeachment processes. The High Court, under paragraphs 232, 233, 234, 235 and 236 of its judgement, made precedent setting pronouncements, of which I seek your indulgence to read out the relevant pronouncements as follows:- “232. It has been argued that the gross violation attributed to Mr. Wambora had not been demonstrated. Gross violation of the Constitution or any other law is a ground for removal from office as provided under Article 181(1)(a). The question that then arises is how you qualify gross violation. Who is the one to assess that the allegations amount to gross violation?” “233. In stating what amounts to gross violation, the Supreme Court of Nigeria in Hon. Muyiwa Inakoju and others versus Hon. Abraham Adeolu Adeleke held that- (i) The word “gross” in the sub-section does not bear its meaning of aggregate income. It rather means generally in the context ‘atrocious, colossal, deplorable, disgusting, dreadful, enormous, gigantic, grave, heinous, outrageous, odious and shocking’. All these words express some extreme negative conduct. Therefore, a misconduct which is the opposite of the above cannot constitute gross misconduct. Whether a conduct is gross or not will depend on the matter as exposed by the facts. It cannot be determined in a vacuum but in relation to the facts of the case and the law policing the facts. (ii) Gross misconduct is defined as- (a) A grave violation or breach of the provisions of the Constitution; and (b) A misconduct of such nature as amounts in the opinion of the House of Assembly to gross misconduct. (iii) By the definition, it is not every violation or breach of the Constitution that can lead to the removal of a governor or deputy governor. Only a grave violation or breach of the Constitution can lead to the removal of a governor or deputy governor. “Grave” in the context does not mean an excavation in earth in which a dead body is buried, rather it means, in my view, serious, substantial, and weighty. 234. With regard to what amounts to gross violation, the Court in Wambora 1 observed at paragraph 253:- “….whatever is alleged against a governor must: (a) Be serious, substantial and weighty. (b) There must be a nexus between the governor and the alleged gross violations of the Constitution or any other written law. (c) The charges framed against the governor and the particulars thereof must disclose a gross violation of the Constitution or any other written law. The electronic version of the Official Hansard Report is for information purposesonly. A certified version of this Report can be obtained from the Hansard Editor."
}