Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 970087,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/970087/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 70,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Mr. Charles Njenga",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "Therefore, in this matter of Gov. Waititu, there may be many arguments, allegations and issues raised by the county assembly. Fair enough. It is their right to want to remove the governor. It is the right of this Senate to hear and determine those charges. However, it is also the right of Gov. Waititu to receive the benefit of the law and due process. If you do not owe him anything else, you owe him that. The standard of the law and due process has to be applied not for the benefit of the governor or the Senate, but for the institution of the rule of law that we have prescribed as a national value under Article 10 of the Constitution. Yes, we may remove him, but let us remove him as the law prescribes. If the law says two-thirds, we have to confirm that the two-thirds majority was attained. Numbers are democracy. If those numbers were not attained at the county assembly level, then the resolution must fail. At the very least, we have to adhere to our constitutional principles, our constitutional standards and our precedent as the Senate. I must say that I have been impressed by the Senate’s insistence in all these reports on the adherence of the county assemblies on due process, threshold nexus and the standards that are now settled. In this matter, Gov. Waititu, as a governor under Article 27 of the Constitution, deserves equal protection of the law. That is a right that is available to him. You cannot be told that lack of numbers is a technicality; it is not. That question was settled by the Supreme Court in Raila Odinga’s Petition of 2013. Where the Constitution prescribes a number threshold, that number threshold is not a technicality. It is a substantive issue that must be demonstrated by evidence. Therefore, arguments will be raised that we have not presented evidence with regards to this issue. There was an admission before this House that it cannot be verified independently even by a Member of the County Assembly who moved the Motion that the numbers required to be realised were realised. Where there is such doubt, can you then move to remove the governor on the basis of that resolution? When there is that ambiguity, then the benefit of doubt must be given to the governor. My colleague will take up the other preliminary issue. However, on this question, I rest by saying that in as much as this matter relates to Kiambu County, it will settle the law on this unique issue. This is because that issue has never arisen in any of the impeachment questions that have come before this assembly; the question of numbers has never arisen. It is unique to these proceedings. This is the opportunity for the Senate to insist on the county assembly that the requirements of removal under Section 33 – the one-third approval and the two-thirds support – must strictly be demonstrated before such a resolution is admitted for hearing. This is because it will be a sad day if we all gathered for two or three days to deliberate, discuss, argue and determine a motion that is improperly before the House. That is why we raised this as a preliminary issue. It will be a manifest, unfair and a wasteful exercise if, at the totality of the facts and the evidence, it demonstrated that, indeed, the Senate was improperly moved. Therefore, hon. Senators, it behooves this House, and it is a responsibility that is given to you by the Constitution, to investigate – to investigate. I repeat “investigation” for emphasis. This is not a contestation between two parties alone; this is a contestation"
}