Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 969581,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/969581/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 123,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Mr. Ng’ang’a Mbugua",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "the technical nature of appeal, it is a pleading that the Governor filed. It contested the issue of numbers. The moment that PO was filed and admittedly served on the Assembly, it behooves the Assembly to lead evidence on the issue of numbers. I am glad that Mr. Njoroge Nani Mungai has said that there should have been some intervention in form of a letter. In fact, he has gone ahead to say that the only time this Senate can investigate numbers is if a letter was written. A letter was written way back on 23rd of December to the Speaker of this Senate on the unprocedural nature of the impeachment that was conducted by the County Assembly of Kiambu. It was received – this is a matter of fact - by the Senate on the 23rd of December, 2019. It raised issues of improprieties that were committed. In fact, it says:- “With respect to the captioned matter and procedural impeachment of Hon. Governor of Kiambu, we noted the following improprieties:” Therefore, this letter is there. It details how the voting was done and the numbers that were present. The Governor through his Advocate, Ndegwa and Ndegwa Associates, was bringing this matter to the attention of the Senate. This letter is before the Senate, it was served and it has a stamp. That was before this impeachment commenced. It is not entirely correct that this issue has never been raised. Let me just add this, because you have been told that you cannot investigate or rather the only time you can investigate is if that question is contested. First, we have shown that it has always been contested. However, what is the purview under Section 33? At the risk of belabouring this point, Section 33(3)(b) says once the Senate is seized of this matter, the Senate shall investigate. It does not say it shall investigate only in certain situations. Mr. Speaker, Sir, your investigative powers while sitting as an impeachment court is not limited to matters that we can bring before you as the litigants, you can delve. We have participated in impeachments where the Office of the Controller of Budget (CoB) has been summoned to shed light. The CoB was never a party. The Office of the Auditor General has been summoned yet that office was not a party. However, that is because this Senate, in its wisdom, wanted to get to the root of materials relevant to the impeachment question before it. Therefore, it cannot lie in the mouth of the Assembly to limit your scope and say: “Do not go beyond this because this question is not contested.” It has always been contested and we have demonstrated that way back in December, 2019. That issue was raised. Mr. Speaker, Sir, on the issue of burden of proof, you were told that in the absence of evidence by the Governor, I heard Mr. Mbuthi Gathenji say that in the absence of evidence then, their case is uncontroverted. Even when the Governor does not adduce any evidence, it still behoves the Assembly to discharge their burden of proof to the required standard. This is so that let it not be said that if we do not tender evidence like what happened when our request was declined, with due respect, it cannot be that then any case presented by the Assembly, even in the absence of evidence of the 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."
}