Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 966670,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/966670/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 169,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "The Deputy Speaker",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "This threat, however hypothetical or remote, is the threat of a rogue, centralist leaning national Government administration misusing national criminal justice institutions within the Executive. This threat, however remote or hypothetical, must be warded off by ensuring that governors who are charged can only be removed from office, if need be, through the mechanism provided for in the Constitution, of impeachment. The national values of good governance, integrity and non-discrimination relied on by Justice Mumbi Ngugi in her judgment above cannot be applied in isolation. They ought to be balanced with equally important national values of sharing and devolution of power; the latter being the basis of protecting, respecting county governments and keeping them independent from whimsical attack by a national Government administration, hypothetically. Therefore, the emerging habit of deputy governors declaring themselves as the governors or acting governors when the respective substantive governor has been charged and barred from accessing the county office is prima facie unconstitutional, illegal, null and void. A governor who cannot access the county office due to a court order has the liberty and discretion to appoint the deputy governor as the acting governor, but such appointment cannot be forced on the governor. As I close, I hasten to caution, however, that it appears to me from a reading of Article 179(5), that if “absence” of a governor is objectively established as opposed to subjective; if it can be objectively established that the governor is absent, as defined in the definitions that we---"
}