Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 969479,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/969479/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 21,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Mr. Peter Wanyama",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "which has been given by the Mover of the notice, attached to that notice of Motion are documentations because they form a package. It is this complaint which is given to the County Assembly to make a decision on. This complaint serves as sufficient notice to the Governor so that he understands his rights, and then he can prepare adequately to push his defence through. If these documents have been given to the Governor and a decision has been made by the County Assembly, we can equate that to a principle in law known as the functus officio . Then the County Assembly decision is final. It is that decision in terms of documentation which the Senate then proceeds on. Therefore, it is important then that the County Assembly cannot introduce additional documentation. Why are we submitting that the County Assembly cannot submit additional documentation? It is because they will be doing what we call a fishing expedition. Introducing new evidence then prejudices the case of the Governor, given the manner in which Section 33 of the County Government Act has been coached and the manner in which the Standing Orders have been crafted. It heavily prejudices the rights of the Governor. Therefore, in submission, the following documents were not given to the Governor, and the burden is on the County Assembly to prove. Lucky for us, they made an express, clear and unequivocal admission in page No.1 of the County Assembly, where they have admitted that this document was not given to the Governor. Page 2 of the County Assembly bundle, page 3 of the County Assembly bundle – the report of the Auditor-General – was not given to the Governor. Even though it is a report which is easily available in the website, it was not given to the Governor as part of that sequence of complaints by the County Assembly in their allegations, so that the Governor can be adequately notified of these allegations and prepare a response accordingly. On page 37 of the County Assembly bundle, there is an admission on record, it was not given to the Governor. From page 50 all the way to page 64, these documents were not part of the complaints or allegations against the Governor in the County Assembly. Page 76 is a document which goes all the way to page 125, one single document which was not given to the Governor. All the documents from page 125 onwards to the tail end of the County Assembly bundle were not given to the Governor as part of the allegations. Our interpretation of Standing Order No.19 is that there are allegations which the Senate’s Standing Orders is express about; the complete package of documentation at the County Assembly. Therefore, as we speak, the rights of the Governor which are guaranteed by Article 51 of the Constitution, which supplants the Standing Orders--- It says that every person has the right to a dispute that can be resolved through the application of law, decided in a fair and public hearing before a court or if appropriate, another independent and impartial tribunal or body. Such that what transpired in the County Assembly, the impeachment proceedings in the County Assembly are quasi-judicial proceedings – removal proceedings. Therefore, the provisions of Article 51 definitely apply. 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."
}