Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 970090,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/970090/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 73,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Mr. Peter Wanyama",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "Good morning, Senators. Mr. Speaker, Sir, my name is Peter Wanyama. I will be making submissions regarding a very fundamental point, which touches on these proceedings; the constitutionality and legality of these proceedings. Mr. Speaker, Sir, we have a problem. These proceedings, we submit, in terms of compliance with the Constitution, the provisions of the County Governments Act and your own Standing Orders, are a nullity in law. Nullity in the sense that there are certain legal questions, which then lead to the conclusion that if those legal questions are considered, then in your decision when you are retiring to make the final vote on the charges facing the governor, you must address that question first. The question is on timelines. It is difficult for yourselves to make this decision because the illegality in question arises from a decision of the Senate itself in these impeachment proceedings, and not an illegality that arises from the county assembly proceedings. So, as I said, it is a very difficult decision to make. In court, it is very easy for us to make submissions for judges to recuse themselves when they do not have jurisdiction. So, we are only repeating it here, but only that the forum is different. Article 181 of the Constitution is express, clear and unequivocal on the process of impeachment of a governor. In accordance with the grounds laid in Article 181 of the Constitution, the process shall be in accordance with legislation enacted by Parliament. The legislation in question is the County Governments Act. The import of that is that the timelines which have been set in the County Governments Act derive validity from the Constitution itself. A response can be made that these timelines can be cured by the provisions of Article 159 of the Constitution, which provide that procedural technicalities are not supposed to impede access to justice. However, our submission is that compliance"
}