Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 970103,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/970103/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 86,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Mr. Peter Wanyama",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "The other comparison is that election petitions in law are strictly conducted within the timelines which have been set. It is just a comparison. There is no way you can extend the timelines which have been put by Statute in terms of election petitions determination. Those timelines have been set pursuant to a constitutional process and implemented by Statute. There are policy reasons that those timelines have been cast in that manner. Why? It is important and critical that impeachment proceedings against a governor be determined within the statutory timelines provided for in Section 33 of the County Government Act. Remember that a governor is elected by the people and, therefore, Article 38(3) of the Constitution, the governor has a right to hold that office once elected. It is a right in the Bill of Rights. There can be no substantive impropriety in the process of taking away the governor’s right to hold office through impeachment proceedings. This technicality, we submit, is substantive. It is not merely a procedural question which, as I submitted earlier can be cured by the provisions of Article 159 of the Constitution or a ruling of the Speaker varying the Standing Order. We submit that hon. Speaker made a substantive, fundamental and serious mistake which casts doubt to the legality of these proceedings and it can only be cured by a rejection of these proceedings. Mr. Speaker, Sir, let me just highlight what the courts have said regarding timelines. I know our documentations were rejected, so I will just read into the HANSARD on what the Supreme Court of Kenya said concerning timelines in the Raila Odinga Case under Section 60 of the Evidence Act. Courts of law are usually required to take judicial notice of the existence of decisions, judgements and all that."
}