Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 969480,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/969480/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 22,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Mr. Peter Wanyama",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "Therefore, the implication is that Article 51 has been breached and the entire provisions of the Fair Administrative Action have also been breached. Therefore, it is on that basis that I submit that when you retire to make your decision, it is a solemn duty. These are your Standing Orders, and Standing Order No.1(2) provides that decisions which have been made in this House are guided by the Constitution, Statute law, usages, forms, precedence, customs, procedures, traditions and traditions of Parliament. The question that we are posing to the Senate is a technical legal question; can the Senate proceed to make a decision on impeachment proceedings, a decision on a Motion whose content and procedure has been tainted with breach of fundamental rules of natural justice? That is the legal question, and for us from the Governor’s side, we are prepared to dig into that issue all the way so that we get the real answer in terms of how we deal with that question. We are persuading you to rule in our favour in this play before the Senate, because it cannot be wished away. Remember, impeachment proceedings are political proceedings, but they are also governed by the law. The second question which is tied to that question of documentation is the right to be heard. Evidence was submitted yesterday before the Senate and it is on the HANSARD, that the Governor was served with the documentation and he chose to send his legal counsel, according to the Standing Orders. He did not appear in person as he chose to send his legal counsel. However, the County Assembly conducted the proceedings in a very cavalier manner, in total disregard of the fact that the proceedings were quasi-judicial in nature and, therefore, the County Governor deserved to be heard to make a commentary. According to Standing Order No.90 of the County Assembly of Kiambu, the Governor had a right to be heard at least for two hours before a decision of the County Assembly was made. Again, it is on record that the Governor was not heard by the County Assembly. The counsel who were sent to represent the Governor were not heard. Therefore, is that breach of the right to be heard and the right to be represented in such a manner such significant that it triggers a decision by this Senate in the negative against the County Assembly? I submit, yes. It is something that you cannot ignore. It must be in your decision because the entire proceedings then have been tainted in that manner. Therefore, we are submitting that everyone is equal before the law. The same standard which was used to deny the County Governor documents in the morning must be used to gauge the applicability of the Standing Order No.19, so that we are seen to be equal before the law and that decisions are not made with express discrimination or implied discrimination. This is because questions regarding equality, fairness and justice will then come in time for consideration. I submit that when you make that decision, you need to be devoid of any other consideration in your mind. You need to only look at the Constitution, law and the Standing Orders. Political considerations aside, you need to make decisions like you are going to deliver justice for the Governor; like you are standing at Armageddon and battling for the Lord, the Lord of justice. Article 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human 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."
}