Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 969574,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/969574/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 116,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Mr. Njoroge Nani Mungai",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "put in an affidavit saying that “yes I am Esther Wamuyu Nyatu, but I am not that Esther and this is my identity card number and it is different.” On that particular allegation, there is no rebuttal. It is material and you need to recognise that the Governor was here and he had an opportunity, under your Standing Orders, to take the stand on matters that he could avert to, but he chose not to. There is a reason as to why there has been a concerted attempt to attack these proceedings on procedural matters. That is because he cannot answer to any of the substantive allegations. On the question of the employment, you were told that there is absolutely no evidence that the Governor’s employment was irregular and that all you have are letters. That is not true. We have the letters from page 129 to 138. However, what is on page 123 is a memo from the County Secretary and Head of Public Service. It says; “the following officers were appointed by His Excellency the Governor and issued with appointment letters signed by him.” That is contrary to the laid down procedures. Therefore, you have a designated officer who is the right person who should know whether these appointments were proper or not, and who says whether they were proper or not. The Governor had this evidence, but he did not put any responses to it. On the allegation on employment, we have solid evidence about the improprieties. On the last question on procurement, the County Assembly’s case of procurement is at two levels. The first level is that there was a systematic and consistent weakening of the controls put in place by the law to protect public finance. It is those that you saw highlighted in terms of over-budgeting, pending bills as well as the irregular procurements. The case for the County Assembly is not that you failed to do all those things. We are aware that this House has held that some of those irregularities are inevitable. It is the purpose for which those weaknesses were introduced that we have an issue with. You must look at the infringements on weakening the procurement safeguards alongside the evidence that the Governor then brought his entire family to benefit from the procurement. It is that combination that is impeachable. We are clear that counties have challenges in streamlining their operations, but in this particular case - unlike in the ones that have been cited - there was a method to the madness. The method was that the beneficiaries of that chaos were his family. When you look at the evidence of hon. Solomon Kinuthia Wambui, he listed all the contracts that had been awarded to members of Gov. Waititu’s family. The Counsel for the Governor stood up and the only attempt to challenge that list was when he asked Mr. Kinuthia how he knew that this lady, Susan Wangari Ndung’u, was a wife. The first rule of cross-examination is you do not ask a question whose answer you do not already know. He was not aware that the witness had actually attended the"
}