{"id":693913,"url":"http://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/693913/?format=json","text_counter":44,"type":"other","speaker_name":"","speaker_title":"","speaker":null,"content":"Now, what are these issues which have been raised in the debate? They are about compliance with the Constitution and legislation. The Governor thought it fit that these issues can be addressed by a counsel. Therefore, he sent the counsel to the county assembly to address these issues. Before the impeachment day, we wrote a letter-annexed at page two-to the county assembly. Mr. Speaker, Sir, if you look at paragraph two, we have reviewed a Notice of Motion forwarded to the Governor and it appears that no supporting documents, list of witnesses and their statements, if any, were supplied thereto. So, we requested for these documents and the letter was received by the county assembly on 1st September, 2016. The impeachment took place on 2nd September, 2016. On 2nd September, 2016, I went to the county assembly at 9.00 a.m. I was invited to the office of the clerk. Later on, we went to the office of the speaker where we discussed this issue for 30 minutes. They told me that they were consulting and they would refer back to me. So, I waited and later on they said that in accordance to their standing orders, the Governor is not required to be represented by the counsel at the county assembly. At that point, they asked me to leave, which I obliged. Mr. Speaker, Sir, that act of asking legal counsel to leave the county assembly on important impeachment proceedings where he is appearing to represent the Governor contradicts the provision of Section 4 of the Fair Administrative Act which is express that you shall be entitled to legal representation. There are no exceptions about it. As it is, there are no proper impeachment proceedings before this Senate for you to make a decision because of that faulty procedure. We will be specifically requesting that when you retire to look at the evidence that the county assembly has submitted and the evidence that the Governor has submitted, to look at that issue in detail so that you can make a finding that the proceedings under substantive and procedural level have not been substantiated. I now go to issues about threshold. What is the legal framework governing impeachment proceedings in Kenya? The legal framework governing impeachment proceedings in Kenya has already been clarified. In the Governor’s documents Volume III, may I quickly refer to it? This is important for the Governor’s defence. There is a definition of gross violation at page 115 of the Governor’s documents Volume III. This is a decision of the Court of Appeal clarifying the law governing impeachment in Kenya. It is an important decision as interprets the provisions of Article 181 of the Constitution as read with Section 33 of the County Governments Act. Mr. Speaker, Sir, in accordance with this decision, there is the definition of the word “gross.” For an allegation to be gross, both the charge and the facts must expressly demonstrate that these allegations are gross. In this decision, the Court of Appeal adopted a Nigeria decision and expressly defined what “gross” means. If you look at paragraph a, b, c, d, e, f and g, they have listed the criteria of what amounts to “gross.” Therefore, this is important. The upshot of this submission is that not every violation of the Constitution or law will attract the procedure under Article 181 of the Constitution. That is what this says. If you find that based on the evidence that the county assembly has submitted are not gross, then the only conclusion you will make is that the provisions of Article 181 are not available. Secondly, is on the issue of nexus. For a Governor to be impeached, those allegations must be personally attributed to the Governor. The issue is contained in the same decision at 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."}