Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 880894,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/880894/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 283,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Homa Bay Town, ODM",
    "speaker_title": "Hon. Peter Kaluma",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 1565,
        "legal_name": "George Peter Opondo Kaluma",
        "slug": "george-peter-opondo-kaluma"
    },
    "content": "Hon. Speaker, I draw your attention to Articles 47 and 251 of the Constitution. I request Members to relive among ourselves the procedure for removal of commissioners. A committee may recommend. I do not know if PAC is right to recommend. But, Hon. Members, it will be very awkward if we recommended removal of commissioners. Article 251(2) of the Constitution requires a petition for removal to be launched. There is nothing wrong with a committee finding grounds for removal in its report. That is in order. But when we recommend removal, let us consider the provisions of Article 251(2) of the Constitution which says that, whoever wants to remove a commissioner, and the grounds may be from anywhere including the Report, the person has only one institution to petition - Parliament. Assume, as Parliament, we recommended in good debate that so and so be removed as a commissioner and then a petitioner, anchored on our findings which will be lawful, comes before us. Would we properly sit and be deemed to be fair and unbiased in treating the petition for removal? In fact, I see that gentleman going to the High Court in a judicial review action and saying the he cannot appear before the institution he is petitioned because it has already predetermined his removal. I see then the High Court blocking people we would otherwise love to remove. I say this with utmost respect. I am one person if you brought a petition or motion for removal of commissioners, I would support."
}