Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 970083,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/970083/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 66,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Mr. Charles Njenga",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "The Motion will become a resolution in the context of Section 33(2) when it is supported by at least two-thirds, and that is when it will be capable of activating the jurisdiction of this Senate. If such a Motion, however well prosecuted, argued or well meritorious an assembly may think it is, but short of the two-thirds majority, it does not result to a motion that is tenable and sustainable, and in the context of Section 33 can be capable of activating the process of removing a governor. What are the facts in this matter? I speak to these facts referring to the investigative mandate of the Senate. The Senate, as earlier illustrated, has an investigative mandate. What is to investigate? It is to interrogate, call, look for and to search for the truth independently. The Senate has power to summon under the rules, and the power to summon extends to the investigative mandate of the Senate. Part of the information that is available to the Senate to look at is the question of how many members participated in the passing of this resolution. It is our submission that this is a burden that is supposed to be demonstrated by the county assembly. Once you put in a preliminary objection impugning the validity of the resolution, then the burden shifts to the county assembly, to demonstrate that indeed the number threshold was achieved. In making this submission, the following facts are relevant. Thirty five members of the county assembly were not in the county assembly on 19th December, 2019. This is a fact that can be independently verified by the Senate. This is a fact that the Senate can call the county assembly into account because attendance of an august House of any Parliament is a documented fact. It cannot be left to conjecture, speculation and equivocation. It is a fact that is put on record by way of a HANSARD, a biometric log or a register. This is public information that the Senate has capacity to take judicial notice of under the Evidence Act. Mr. Speaker, Sir, it will be a sad day for the Senate and the country if the Senate says that they cannot inquire into the proceedings of the county assembly as they hear an impeachment Motion. What that means is that three members of the county assembly can wake up one day and bring a resolution to the Senate and say: ‘quickly convene and hear these charges.’ Far from it, the duty of the Senate under Article 96 of the Constitution is to protect counties, their institutions and their people. Part of this protection is interrogating what goes on in the county assembly, and all the organs set out in the Constitution. You will see that the report of the Speaker says that there were 64 members. It is very easy – and nothing could have been easier – to provide a list of these 64 members who were present in the House on that day. That was not given. There is nothing easier than providing a list of the 63 members who purportedly voted in support of the resolution, and saying that under Section 33 (2) of the County Governments Act, these are the members who supported the Motion. We have at our disposal on the evidence--- The directions were that it should not be admitted, but it is within the Governor’s knowledge that 35 MCAs were not present. Of the 35 members, 33 of them have sworn affidavits which they can be cross-examined"
}