Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 969571,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/969571/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 113,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Mr. Njoroge Nani Mungai",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "is not correct. The CAJ report is not equivalent to a newspaper report. The CAJ is a constitutional commission and a statutory body. Section 8(b) of the Commission of Administrative Justice Act gives the CAJ the power to investigate abuse of office and the power to issue reports on its investigations. The reports of the CAJ are statutory reports. Secondly, there has been a determination by the court as to the binding effect of the CAJ reports. In Commission of Administration of Justice vs Vision 2030 Delivery Board and three others, civil appeal No. 141 of 2015, the Court of Appeal found that the findings of the CAJ are binding. Therefore, the allegation that the CAJ report is not weighty does not arise. You were also told that when it comes to a crime then you must have a conviction. It is my humble submission that it is not the law. Article 181(1)(b) of the Constitution states that;- ‘(1) A county governor may be removed from office on any of the following grounds— (b) where there are serious reasons for believing that the county governor has committed a crime under national or international law;’ The key words there are ‘serious reasons for believing’ and not that there is conviction. The Constitution has a separate provision for removing a Governor for conviction which is Article 182(1)(d) which states that;- ‘(1) The office of the county governor shall become vacant if the holder of the office— (d) is convicted of an offence punishable by imprisonment for at least twelve months;’ The framers of the Constitution could not have anticipated that those are the same. The only requirement under Article 181 is that there are serious reasons for believing. The threshold for that, which you were told by them, is that there should be evidence that is more than on a balance of a probability but not beyond reasonable doubt. We are submitting that the binding findings of the CAJ do provide serious grounds for believing that a crime was committed. In fact, the CAJ in its recommendations went further and recommended that the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) prosecutes. That is how serious the CAJ deemed that fact."
}