Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 966643,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/966643/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 142,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "The Deputy Speaker",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "contravening several provisions in the Constitution, which he cited with significant emphasis. Sen. Cherargei’s view, that this Motion was inadmissible, generated further points of order from the Senate Majority Leader and Senator for Elgeyo-Marakwet County, the Hon. Kipchumba Murkomen, as well as Senators Moses Kajwang’ of Homa Bay County, and Kimani Wamatangi of Kiambu County. Other than the Mover, none of the Senators who spoke on this point of order was categorical that the Motion was constitutionally sound and should, therefore, be admissible. This is an understandable situation, because the legal issues raised are somewhat weighty and the gaps in the applicable law aggravating. I shall not regurgitate all the legal issues raised in challenging admissibility of the Motion, as the entire proceedings of the sitting of the Senate that afternoon of 12th November, 2019, are publicly available from the HANSARD. Suffice it to say, the Senators contesting the admissibility of this Motion argued, in so many words, that the Motion:- (1) Has the effect of endorsing the “erroneous” view that a county governor can be removed from office outside the provisions of Articles 180, 181 and 182 of the Constitution, read cumulatively; (2) Goes against the constitutional principle of presumption of innocence to the detriment of county governors charged before courts of law; (3) Will enable deputy county governors to unconstitutionally and illegally claim or demand performance of the roles and functions of county governors as well as exercise of functions reserved in law for county governors through the backdoor; (4) In material part, the Motion reveals that it is aimed at enabling the deputy county governors of Kiambu and Samburu counties, whose bosses were charged with criminal offences and subsequently barred from accessing their offices, to perform some or all of the roles of the county governors, yet the question of whether they can do so is already pending before court; and, (5) It was argued that the Motion erroneously assumes that a court, by ordering that a county governor shall not access their office during the pendency of the criminal suit against them, effectively suspends such county governor and that the governor is deemed “absent” within the meaning and context of Article 179(5) of the Constitution, thereby automatically triggering the immediate assumption of the roles, functions and powers of the county governor by the deputy county governor until the criminal suit is heard and determined; or until the court order is lifted, whichever is earlier."
}