Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 970099,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/970099/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 82,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Mr. Peter Wanyama",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "“Every person is equal before the law and has the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law.” Mr. Speaker, Sir, an impeachment proceeding which is being conducted in accordance with the provisions of Section 33 of the County Government Act pursuant to the provisions of Article 181 of the Constitution must be uniform. Every governor or deputy governor who comes before this House in an impeachment proceeding must be subjected to a similar standard of impeachment. Any deviation from that, then calls into question the legality of the process. You can see that it is clear beyond peradventure that Governor Waititu cannot be subjected to an impeachment proceeding which is done at the discretion of the Senate and outside the provisions of the County Government Act. We can run away from that issue but it is a live legal question. The courts have ruled on the question regarding equality before the law. Every person must be subjected to a similar treatment and must derive benefit from the law. Why should Governor Waititu be subjected to a process of impeachment which is done 28 days after the statutory timelines? Is that not a problem? Mr. Speaker, Sir, I submit that we have a heavy and fundamental legal problem which cannot be cured by the provisions of Article 159 of the Constitution. Another comparison is very important. There are strict timelines in Article 144 of the Constitution regarding the impeachment of the President and the Deputy President. Those timelines must be followed. There is no way during the impeachment of a President or Deputy President, you can go ahead and change those timelines because they are cast in law. They are cast in stone and cannot be deviated from. Changing those timelines then becomes a problem. In terms of the interpretation of the law, we must interpret the law in a manner that we create a multiple basis for consistency in parliamentary decision-making. So in this case, all we are asking for is consistency in parliamentary decision-making. There must be a multiple basis through which we exercise that power to interpret the law."
}