Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 969570,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/969570/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 112,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Mr. Njoroge Nani Mungai",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "Counsel suggested that the bundle that we submitted before this House was submitted out of time, and contained materials that should not be heard. That is not true. The County Assembly is required, under the rules, to submit its evidence within three days of being served with an invitation. If you look at the wording of Rule 7, it says:- “Where the County Assembly chooses to appear before the Senate, the Senate shall be required within three days of the invitation on the date specified to provide the Clerk with documentation, designating members, indicating the mode of appearance, the names and persons if any, and a statement of each such witness and specifying any other evidence to be relied on.” So, there is express provision that allows one to put in witness statements. Remember that the County Assembly proceedings are by a way of Notice of Motion, and may or may not have had witness statements. So, you are entitled to produce witness statements. The second thing that you are supposed to do is that you are allowed to bring any other evidence to be relied on. The only limitation that is put on the County Assembly is the limitation in Rule 19 which says that;- “In presenting its evidence, the Assembly shall not introduce any new evidence that was not a part of the allegations against the Governor by the County Assembly as forwarded by the Speaker of the County Assembly to the Speaker of the Senate.” The evidence being addressed up there is the one provided for in Rule 7. The question is not whether you bring new evidence, but you should not bring any new evidence of new allegations. The Counsel for the Governor was conflating two things. There is a big difference between allegations and evidence. There can be additional evidence provided it comes within that three days period. The counsel submitted that there was an admission that documents were filed out of time. That is not true. We did not file anything out of time. The documentation that has been presented has been done within time. If you look at that evidence, the additional evidence that has been presented, it is still on the same allegations, except in one or two instances such as the Auditor General’s Report where there was evidence of the various documents that had been submitted. They are part of the bundle that was sent to the Senate. Therefore, there is no breach in terms of the documentation that has been presented. I will quickly deal with the question of the adequacy of that evidence. I want to broadly state that in our view, the evidence is completely adequate. I will start with the one that has the shortest element for me to move quickly and that is the evidence on crimes of a national nature; the Commission on Administrative Justice (CAJ) report. We were told by the counsel that the CAJ report is equivalent to a newspaper report and 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."
}