HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept
{
"id": 943090,
"url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/943090/?format=api",
"text_counter": 240,
"type": "speech",
"speaker_name": "Sen. Orengo",
"speaker_title": "The Senate Minority Leader",
"speaker": {
"id": 129,
"legal_name": "Aggrey James Orengo",
"slug": "james-orengo"
},
"content": " That is very good information, although it is a rhetorical question. However, in law, there is never no solution. If I can give the governor free advice, he should go back to court and he can say: “Arising out of the decision of the Senate, the matter has been compromised and there should be no further proceedings.” However, if he elects to go on, the courts can still hear it irrespective of the decision that has been made and say the debate in Parliament or the Senate has been vitiated. He can make that election. However, if he is brought again, he will not expect any mercy. I remember when we were doing the Governor Wambora matter, every Senator was waiting for him to come back. He made sure that he did not come back. When he did, he went back to the courts, which shielded him. My point is that the courts will still have the final word, but the Senate cannot initiate a process of impeachment. That process either starts from the county assembly, who prepare the charges or, in respect to the President and Deputy President, it comes from the National Assembly. If the governor wants peace in Taita-Taveta, and I think he has got some representatives here listening, he should go to court and say that the matter has been compromised in view of what the Senate has done. But if he goes on, the possibility is still there. From my perspective, we need to sit down and spell out the impeachment processes, where an accused person elects not to attend. He is an accused person not in a criminal court, but in a political process. Impeachment is a political process and the governor should be held accountable. Impeachment is also a process of accountability; to check and make sure that the governor or the President can be held to account. It does not matter really whether or not one is convicted. Even if the governor is not convicted, it is still an important process. Since there is no criminal trial as would take place in a criminal court, we should have in the impeachment law--- Since the governor is elected to serve the people, he should under that process be compelled to appear before the county assembly. When the matter is before the Senate, the governor or whoever is being impeached, must be compelled to appear before the Senate. If governors and other people will take their positions or the courts as a shield, then we need a law that the accused person can hear the testimony being adduced against them. Having said that, I appreciate the Committee very much for what they have done; not because of the outcome, but because they have considered what is required in an impeachment process. They heard the evidence, considered the law and made a determination. Even if it had to go for a review – even though there is no other body above the Senate to review - I am sure that, that decision would not be changed in any circumstances. Governor Samboja should count himself lucky because, as they say in United States of America (USA), whether or not an offence has been committed, it is what the Senators decide. We can talk about the law and the threshold, but at the end of the day, it The electronic version of the Senate Hansard Report is for information purposesonly. A certified version of this Report can be obtained from the Hansard Editor, Senate."
}