Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 970052,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/970052/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 35,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Mr. Njoroge Nani Mbugua",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "Mr. Speaker, Sir, just a few additions to what my learned senior has argued on. First, the request for additional evidence. It is very clear from the submissions that you have heard that the Governor is not asking to produce evidence about the allegations on his conduct. You have been told that the evidence is with regard to the logs and attendance at the County Assembly. It is, therefore, clear that the Governor has no intention of tabling any evidence with regards to the allegations. However, what is curious is that the preliminary objection that was filed before you states that it is self-evident on the available facts. So, at the point that they filed a preliminary objection, they were satisfied that there were available facts that were already filed. Coming to the Standing Orders; we are told that the evidence that is supposed to come is evidence to help you determine whether there was quorum in the County Assembly. It is my humble submission that the Senate has no business interrogating that question in light of its mandate and its rules. The rules circumscribe what you are required to do. Rule No. 2 provides that the Senate shall, in Plenary, investigate the matter and determine whether the particulars of the allegations against the Governor have been substantiated. So, the only thing you are supposed to be looking at is whether the allegations against the Governor have been substantiated. Rule No. 19 which has been cited to you, in fact, precludes the County Assembly from bringing evidence about the process in terms who attended and who did not attend. It says in presenting its evidence, the Assembly shall not introduce any new evidence that was not part of the allegations against the Governor. The question of quorum was not an issue at the County Assembly and there was no evidence about that. Therefore, the County Assembly is precluded from bringing that evidence. This House is being asked to interrogate the resolution of the Speaker. In fact, the Notice of Motion expressly states that the Speaker of the County Assembly is misrepresenting to the Senate. I submit that when the Speaker received the notice from the County Assembly of Kiambu, the presumption is that there was a quorum in that particular House. Therefore, it is not for this House to interrogate that question. I pointed out yesterday that the Standing Orders of Kiambu County has clear provisions for bringing out that question. Standing Order No. 98 provides in case of confusion or error in counting occurring in the course of the rollcall concerning the numbers or names recorded which cannot otherwise be corrected, the Speaker shall direct the Assembly to proceed to another rollcall. That is during the hearing. Second, if after a rollcall has been made and it is discovered that a member had been inaccurately reported or an error had occurred in the names of the Division, the facts shall be reported to the Assembly and the Speaker shall determine that the necessary corrections be made. Mr. Speaker, Sir, the place where the Governor ought to have raised the question of numbers is the County Assembly. The only way that the Governor can now ask you to revisit that question is if he had applied in the County Assembly and been denied. Then he would be coming here to tell you that we made that application there. We were denied"
}