Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 970127,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/970127/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 110,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Mr. Ng'ang’a Mbugua",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "Mr. Speaker, Sir, following the direction and the ruling you gave, I will now speak to the factual and evidentiary deficiency of this impeachment as presented by the assembly. I will start my discussion on a rendition on what the standard that should be met by the assembly is. An oft-cited decision which I am happy that the assembly in their opening remarks cited is that of Gov. Martin Nyaga Wambora and others versus the Speaker of the Senate which is reported 2014 EKLR. Mr. Speaker, Sir, I start my discussion by quoting a finding of the Court of Appeal on what constitutes impeachable conduct. The Court of Appeal had occasioned to consider that matter and in its wisdom gave the following rendition of the law. “That to our minds, therefore, whether a conduct is gross or not, would depend on the facts of each case having regard to the Article of the Constitution or the law alleged to have been violated. We find, however, that it is not every violation of the Constitution or written law can lead to the removal of a governor. It has to be gross violation”. This Senate may find certain violations. However, not every violation of the law constitutes an impeachable offence. In the same decision, the Court of Appeal went on to say that the violation must be serious, substantial and weighty. So, this Senate, in its consideration of this impeachment Motion, will need to ask itself whether that standard of being serious, substantial and weighty been discharged by the assembly. It should not just point out that there was a legal infraction. What is the nature of that infraction? Mr. Speaker, Sir, in a case from the Supreme Court of Nigeria which we had occasion to cite in a previous impeachment hearing, Hon. Muyiwa Inakoju and Hon Abraham Adeolu Adeleke, the Supreme Court of Nigeria had occasion to consider the issue of what an impeachable offence is and had occasion to say as follows: “That a Governor as a human being cannot always be right just like no human being can always be right”. That explains why Section 188 of that decision talks about gross violations. The decision by the Supreme Court of Nigeria is that where misconduct is not gross, then the weapon of removal from office is not available to the House of Assembly. The question that we need to continually grapple with after having listened to the evidence that was tabled yesterday is whether those infractions were proved. If you are to find that the infractions were proved, do they rise to the required standard? I will revisit that in a short while. Mr. Speaker, Sir, there are various other decisions that I do not intend to take you through, such as the Gov. Mwangi wa Iria decision which I had opportunity to participate in where violations were found, some of which mirrors what is before the Senate today including allegations touching on pending bills. However, they were all rejected not because they were not proved, but because in the wisdom of the Senate, they did not rise to the required standards that would constitute the grounds for invoking removal from office. The Court of Appeal set the same standard in the case of Gov. Wambora."
}