Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 966646,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/966646/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 145,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "The Deputy Speaker",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "a) Aims at addressing current, live challenges in some counties, where court orders bar certain county governors from accessing their offices following arraignment of those county governors before Courts for criminal prosecution. b) Seeks to enable deputy county governors who assume the functions of the office of the county governor, following a court order, as described in the foregoing paragraph, to perform those functions without any constraints, hindrances or challenges whatsoever, with the only limitations being those specified in Section 32(4) of the County Governments Act; specifically on nomination, appointment and dismissal. c) He argued that the Motion is admissible because it considers that the limitations on the powers that a deputy county governor can exercise provided for under the aforesaid Section 32(4) of the County Governments Act do not include power to reshuffle County Executive Committee (CEC) Members. That limitation, according to Sen. Olekina, does not limit the county governor from shuffling CEC Members as well as Chief Officers, or other appointees of the governor. d) He also argued that the Motion is inspired by the reality that in cases where deputy county governors are acting the roles and functions of the county governor after the county governor has been barred by Court from accessing office, the said deputy county governors have been rendered powerless and are being frustrated by the appointees of the governor in the respective county governments, or by other agencies."
}