{"id":695137,"url":"http://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/695137/?format=json","text_counter":1268,"type":"other","speaker_name":"","speaker_title":"","speaker":null,"content":"executive officer and accountable for the county resources at that level, there are structures of how these resources are supposed to be managed. There are structures, for instance, on how procurement is supposed to be done. The governor is not supposed to interfere in the procurement process. The governor is not supposed to interfere on how accounting officers, designated as such, make their financial management decisions, in accordance with the framework which has been laid in the Public Finance Management Act and the regulations. As to whether the Governor can be impeached from office on that issue, we urge this Senate to consider the evidence which was submitted by the County Assembly and our response; you find that the challenges are operational in nature. Impeachment of the Governor is a knee-jerk reaction to these operational challenges. At the end of the day, the impeachment will not resolve the underlying problems which inform these operational challenges. Instead, we call upon and request this Senate to make appropriate recommendations geared towards remedying these operational challenges. Under Article 96 of the Constitution, it is within the mandate of this Senate to make these recommendations. The Senate is supposed to protect counties, but not to see them go down on issues which can clearly be addressed. For instance, is mediation something which can be pursued to remedy this budget stalemate? The Controller of Budget has said: “Yes, give me a chance; these are issues which I can mediate because I have mediated difficult issues before.” Are we going to impeach the Governor and yet there are mechanisms established in law to deal with that? In the impeachment of the Kericho County Governor, these similar issues were there between the County Assembly and the County Executive. The Senate in its recommendations, which we have annexed in the Governor’s Bundle Volume III, was express, that there was need for urgent reconciliation to ensure the problem does not persist. We are urging this Senate to make that recommendation. The Governor has indicated so. It is only the County Assembly which seems to be saying that it is the Governor who is responsible for this mess. For the County Assembly to recognise that there is a dispute, they must accept their part of blame. It is the County Assembly which approved the nine CECs who they say, do not meet the gender balance rule. How can they later on say that the Governor should be impeached on something which they approved? They should have as well not approved the nine CEC members and asked the Governor to submit a fresh list that complies with the Constitution. We can clearly see that it cannot lie on the mouth of the County Assembly to then accuse the Governor, that he has grossly violated the Constitution, because that appears to be the only issue in terms of violation which we have said exists. However, for purposes of impeachment, it does not exist because it is not a gross violation to be coming from the County Assembly for purposes of impeachment. The flip side is that if it the County Assembly has rejected these names and the Governor had gone ahead to appoint without considering the recommendations of the County Assembly, then in my opinion, it would have been a gross violation. Most of these issues which the Count Assembly is alleging are grounds for impeachment are issues which have been there in terms of time. For instance, the issue of Karson House arose at that stage when governors were being sworn into offices. There was an interim team which was appointed courtesy of a legal framework which ceased to exist. 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."}