Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 755777,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/755777/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 56,
    "type": "other",
    "speaker_name": "",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "elections of the President null and void. If that is the case, therefore, President Uhuru Kenyatta is not at the moment, exercising a period of temporary incumbency. This will have different definitions. If you read Article 134 of the Constitution, it says:- (1) A person who holds the office of President or who is authorised in terms of this Constitution to exercise the powers of the President— ( a ) during the period commencing on the date of the first vote in a presidential election, and ending when the newly elected President assumes office; ( b ) while the President is absent or incapacitated, or at other times contemplated in Article 147 (3), may not exercise the powers of the President specified in clause (2).” So, the first vote which would have been the vote of 8th August,2017, would have created a situation of temporary incumbency of the President. But what happens when that vote was declared null and void? What does that mean in terms of definition of nullity of an election? If the meaning is therefore as though the first vote under Article 134, never existed in the first place; which means there was no elections of the President, it therefore, means that the temporary incumbency of President Kenyatta was also nullified by the Supreme Court. If it was, then he is exercising the constitutional powers donated to him since 2013. That is argument no.1. Argument No.2 is that; assuming that President Kenyatta was, therefore, a temporary President exercising a period of temporary incumbency. This can easily be tested if President Kenyatta, for example, wakes up tomorrow and appoints someone – for example a Cabinet Secretary (CS) – and forwards to the House for approval. Of course, someone will rush to court to seek interpretation of whether he has that power. But assuming that he was exercising temporary incumbency, the Constitution itself sets out the powers that are limited by the Constitution during the period of temporary incumbency as follows:- (2) The powers referred to in clause (1) are— (a) the nomination or appointment of the judges of the superior courts; (b) the nomination or appointment of any other public officer whom this Constitution or legislation requires the President to appoint; (c) the nomination or appointment or dismissal of Cabinet Secretaries and other State or Public officers; (d) the nomination or appointment or dismissal of a high commissioner, ambassador, or diplomatic or consular representative; (e) the power of mercy; and (f) the authority to confer honours in the name of the people and the Republic. You can see very clearly that our friends, who erroneously boycotted the official opening of Parliament yesterday and who, I hope, are not in extension--- I congratulate the honourable Senator for urkana County for taking his representative responsibilities seriously and stoically representing the other side with a lot of confidence and passion. I believe we will demonstrate that later when he makes his contribution in the House. Such men must be honoured for the seriousness with which they take their responsibly to their citizens. Mr. Speaker, Sir, if you read these sections, there are no provisions here that say that the President cannot open and address Parliament. Neither are there provisions that"
}