HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept
{
"id": 732342,
"url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/732342/?format=api",
"text_counter": 116,
"type": "speech",
"speaker_name": "Hon. Speaker",
"speaker_title": "",
"speaker": null,
"content": "of the parties. It is not clear what mischief the court sought to address by issuing the orders at the time it so did. Indeed, at the time of the issuance of the order, the Committee had not even finished its investigations into the Petition as required by the Standing Order No.230(4). The Omtatah Case and the court order are, indeed, pre-emptive of the fact that the Committee may as well have reached a conclusion that the Petition did not disclose a ground for removal of the Auditor-General as contemplated in Article 251(3) of the Constitution. The Committee would have then tabled a report to the House seeking approval of their findings. Needless to say, the House may agree or disagree with the Committee. In the event the House finds that the Petition does disclose a ground for removal of the Auditor-General under Article 251(3) of the Constitution, then the Petition shall be forwarded to the President. Hon. Members, allow me to re-emphasise that as seen in Article 251 of the Constitution, which I need not restate, it is clear that it is only the National Assembly that has the mandate to consider the substance of the Petition, in the first instance. This, simply put, involves an examination of whether the Petition has merit or not. In the second instance, the other body that ought to consider the substance of such a petition is the tribunal contemplated under paragraph (4)(b). It may also be valid to argue that, indeed, the actual quasi-judicial trial on matters of this nature would vest in the tribunal, if the matter was to escalate to such a level. It is, therefore, not also clear what the court order seeks to achieve. Indeed, the House would expect that the court order is not an attempt to remove the hat of the National Assembly and put it on the Judiciary as doing so would be a clear violation of the provisions of Article 251 of the Constitution which confers jurisdiction only on the National Assembly to consider a petition for removal of the a member of a constitutional commission or independent office in its substance. Indeed, Hon. Members, as you are all aware, the Speaker ordinarily receives petitions seeking to remove members of constitutional commissions and holders of independent offices. As a matter of fact, this House has in the past deliberated on several petitions for removal of Members of constitutionals commissions and holders of independent offices. You would recall several of them, including the two separate petitions for removal of members of the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission, the Petition for removal of members of the Judicial Service Commission, the Petition for removal of members of the National Police Service Commission, the separate Petitions for Removal of Chairperson and members of the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission, the Petition for removal of the Attorney-General and Motions for removal of specific Cabinet Secretaries amongst others. In many of these instances, the House pronounced itself through reports submitted by Committees of this House. In some cases, including the one in the case of the Petition for the Removal of the Chairperson of the Gender and Equality Commission and the first petition for the removal of the members of the IEBC, the House agreed with the Committee that the respective petitions did not disclose a ground for removal of the said State officers from respective offices. The matters then ended there. It is inconceivable that courts would have intervened to prevent the House from expressing itself in the manner it did. Nobody complained about that result. It is important to note that in all these petitions, the courts did not restrain the National Assembly from considering the matters. Indeed, this House has also adjudicated on previous petitions seeking the removal of other persons from office, including one on the removal of the Auditor-General, which was not admitted for failure to meet the requirements of the Constitution, the Petitions to Parliament (Procedure) Act and our Standing Orders. 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."
}