Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 966681,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/966681/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 180,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "The Deputy Speaker",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "deputy governor, relating to the deputy governor becoming the acting governor, is similar to the meaning and implication in the phrase used in Article 182(2) in relation to a vacancy occurring in the office of the governor. In other words, the way that Article 179(5) is phrased is similar to how Article 182(2) is framed. Article 182(2) is on a vacancy occurring in the office of governor, let us say by death, resignation, et cetera . The assumption of office for a deputy governor in such circumstances of Article 182(2) are in mandatory terms. In other words, the deputy governor does not need to be prompted or aided, other than being sworn in automatically. If death or resignation is established, the deputy governor assumes office as governor. It is the same word used in Article 179(5), and so governors should be careful. It follows that as was specifically raised by Sen. Kajwang’ in reference to the Governor of Homa Bay County who for a long time was absent from office and perhaps from the county due to physical infirmity in the form of temporary blindness, the deputy governor of that county could have acted as governor with or without the substantive governor’s appointment, subject to establishing objectively “absence”. I mean that somebody has to go to court and have that interpreted. You cannot declare that this amounts to “absence” then act. So, the deputy governor of Homa Bay could have automatically done that subject to establishing “absence” for the full duration the governor was away from the county or the jurisdiction of Kenya and not away from office. However, when the governor remained out of office but within the county, that would not be the case. The situation in respect to the Governor of Homa Bay County could also have triggered, in my view, legitimately if not lawfully, impeachment proceedings on grounds of physical incapacity occasioned by infirmity as anticipated in Article 181(1)(d) as read together with Section 33 of the County Governments Act and Article 144 of the Constitution applies mutatis mutandis. Similarly, as cited by Sen. Kajwang’, where as was the case in 2018 when the Governor of Migori County was barred by a criminal court from setting foot anywhere within 20 kilometres from the border of Migori and Homa Bay Counties; that would not denote “absence” of the governor. However, if the court order required the said governor not to set foot anywhere in Migori County, the governor’s “absence” could, in my view, have been established objectively and trigger the automatic assumption of the deputy governor to act as governor as long as the court order remained active. The material part of the Motion by Sen. Olekina is the third paragraph which reads as follows:- “AWARE THAT, in several counties, deputy county governors have had to serve as county governors due to absence of the substantive county governors arising from ill health, incapacity or orders emanating from the courts barring the substantive governor from accessing office;” The Motion is unconstitutional to the extent of its disclosed intention, namely, to legitimize and formalize the “acting” status of a deputy county governor who may have erroneously assumed office as a result of court orders barring the substantive governor from accessing the county office, in the mistaken belief that: 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."
}