{"count":1608389,"next":"http://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/?format=json&page=139163","previous":"http://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/?format=json&page=139161","results":[{"id":1408031,"url":"http://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1408031/?format=json","text_counter":104,"type":"speech","speaker_name":"Hon. Speaker","speaker_title":"","speaker":null,"content":"The three Members at the Bar, take your seats. This will take a little longer. Take the nearest seats. Thank you. The strict timeline of three days is intended to allow the Speaker to examine the proposed Motion and any evidence attached to it, and determine whether the proposed motion meets the procedural requirements outlined in the Standing Orders. In this regard, I note that the Member for Bumula Constituency submitted the proposed Motion to my office last week on Wednesday, 24th April 2024. Article 259(5) of the Constitution provides for the manner of computation of time. It guides that where time is The electronic version of the Official Hansard Report is for information purposesonly. A certified version of this Report can be obtained from the Hansard Editor"},{"id":1408032,"url":"http://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1408032/?format=json","text_counter":105,"type":"speech","speaker_name":"Hon. Speaker","speaker_title":"","speaker":null,"content":"expressed as days, the day on which the first event occurs is to be excluded, and the day by which the last event may occur is to be included when computing time. Consequently, the period of three days that applies to the Hon. Speaker in respect of the proposed Motion started running from Thursday, 25th April 2024. The three days expired on Saturday, 27th April 2024 and as such, the earliest available opportunity for the Hon. Speaker to notify the House on the admissibility of the proposed Special Motion is today, being the nearest available sitting of the House since receipt of the proposed Motion. Hon. Members, allow me to highlight the legal and procedural requirements that guide the process of dismissing a Cabinet Secretary. Article 152(6) of the Constitution provides that a member of the National Assembly, supported by at least one quarter of all the Members of the Assembly, may propose a Motion requiring the President to dismiss a Cabinet Secretary— (a) on the ground of a gross violation of a provision of the Constitution or of any other law; (b) where there are serious reasons for believing that the Cabinet Secretary has committed a crime under national or international law; or, (c) for gross misconduct. Procedurally, Standing Order 66(1) provides that “before giving Notice of Motion under Article 152(6) of the Constitution, a Member shall deliver to the Clerk a copy of the proposed Motion in writing— (a) stating the grounds and particulars in terms of Article152(6) of the Constitution upon which the proposed Motion is made; (b) signed by the Member; and, (c) signed in support by at least one-quarter of all the Members of the Assembly. Hon. Members, additionally, Standing Order 64(1A) provides as follows on the admissibility of grounds for removal from office: (1a) The grounds specified in a Motion under this Standing Order shall be admissible if— (a) framed clearly to particularise and disclose a gross violation of the Constitution or other written law, where gross violation of the Constitution or other written law is indicated as a ground for the intended removal; (b) stating with precision, the provisions of the Constitution or other written law that are alleged to have been grossly violated, where gross violation of the Constitution or other written law is indicated as a ground for the intended removal; and, (c) accompanied by necessary evidence, including annexures or sworn testimonies in respect of the allegations. Hon. Members, it is worth noting that Standing Orders 64(1A) and 66 as presently couched find their basis from the practice of the House in the 11th and 12th Parliament where notices of Motion were submitted by Members for dismissal of various Cabinet Secretaries. These include the Notice of Motion for dismissal of the then Cabinet Secretary for Devolution, Hon. Anne Waiguru; the Notice of Motion for dismissal of the then Cabinet Secretary for Transport, Mr. James Macharia and the Notice of Motion for the dismissal of the then Cabinet Secretary for Education, Prof. Jacob Kaimenyi. My predecessor, the Hon. Justin Muturi, Speaker, has had occasion to guide the House on the manner of considering a Special Motion such as the one proposed by the Hon. Member for Burnula. In a Communication issued on 22nd October 2015 on the Processing of Special Motions on removal of state officers, the Hon. Speaker guided the House as follows: The electronic version of the Official Hansard Report is for information purposesonly. A certified version of this Report can be obtained from the Hansard Editor"},{"id":1408033,"url":"http://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1408033/?format=json","text_counter":106,"type":"speech","speaker_name":"Hon. Speaker","speaker_title":"","speaker":null,"content":"1. That all Special Motions brought before the House under Article 152(6) of the Constitution should comply with thresholds established by the courts of law as to what constitutes gross violation of the Constitution or gross misconduct under the Constitution. 2. That the question of determining what constitutes gross violation of the Constitution or gross misconduct is one that clings and hangs on the impeachable authority of the House and is exercisable in two instances: - Firstly, at the point of the approval of the Special Motion for impeachment or dismissal by the Hon. Speaker pursuant to Standing Order 47(3)(b) and (e) which requires the Hon. Speaker to be satisfied of the constitutional and evidential propriety of the Special Motions. Secondly, at the point of investigations conducted by the relevant Select Committee or tribunal, pursuant to the provisions of the relevant Article of the Constitution. 3. Averments made in the Special Motions should be accompanied by the necessary evidence including annexures and sworn testimonies in respect of the allegation as may be necessary. Hon. Members, our courts have also grappled with the question of the threshold for admissibility of impeachment motions. This has led them to set a standard for determining what constitutes \"gross violation of the law\" or \"gross misconduct\" in impeachment processes through a number of precedent-setting cases. Notably, the High Court of Kenya, in Martin Nyaga Wambora and 30 Others versus the County Assembly of Embu and 4 others (Embu Constitutional Petition Nos.7 and 8 of 2014), considered the issue of the required threshold for determining what amounts to a gross violation of the Constitution and gross misconduct in impeachment processes. With regard to what constitutes gross violation of the Constitution, the court observed that the charges framed against the governor and the particulars thereof must disclose a gross violation of the Constitution or any other written law; and the charges as framed must state with degree of precision the Article(s) or even Sub-Article(s) of the Constitution or the provisions of any other written law that have been alleged to be grossly violated. Hon. Members, the court further gave examples of constitutional provisions whose violation would constitute gross violation of the Constitution. According to the Court, these include: - 1. Chapter 1 – On the sovereignty of the people and supremacy of the Constitution, and more specifically Articles 1, 2 and 3(2) of the Constitution; 2. Chapter 2 – Article 4 that establishes Kenya as a sovereign multi-party Republic and Article 6 that establishes devolution and access to services; 3. Article 10 – On national values and principles of good governance; 4. Chapter 4 – On the Bill of Rights; 5. Chapter 6 – Articles 73 to 78 on leadership and integrity; 6. Chapter 12 – Article 201 on principles of public finance; 7. Chapter 13 – Article 232 on values and principles of public service; and 8. Chapter 14 – Article 238 on principles of national security, among other constitutional provisions. Further, in respect of what constitutes gross misconduct, the court observed that whether a conduct is gross or not will depend on the matter as exposed by the facts. It cannot be determined in a vacuum but in relation to the facts of the case and the law policing the facts. Gross misconduct is defined as ‘a grave violation’ or ‘breach of the provisions of the Constitution’ and a misconduct of such nature as amounts in the opinion of the House of Assembly to gross misconduct. Drawing from the foregoing, the House amended its Standing Orders at the end of the 11th Parliament to comply with the prescribed thresholds. Presently, our Standing Orders 64 The electronic version of the Official Hansard Report is for information purposesonly. A certified version of this Report can be obtained from the Hansard Editor"},{"id":1408034,"url":"http://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1408034/?format=json","text_counter":107,"type":"speech","speaker_name":"Hon. Speaker","speaker_title":"","speaker":null,"content":"and 66 incorporate the pronouncements of the court on the threshold for admissibility of grounds for removal of a Cabinet Secretary by requiring that grounds in a Motion must be framed clearly to particularise and disclose a gross violation of the Constitution or other written law; and that such grounds must also state with precision, the provisions of the Constitution or other written law that are alleged to have been grossly violated. Hon. Members, having examined the legal and procedural requirements of processing Special Motions for the removal of persons from office, permit me now to determine whether the proposed Special Motion by the Member for Bumula Constituency is admissible. It is worth noting that Standing Order 47(3)(b) and (e) places an obligation on the Speaker to make a determination on whether any proposed Motion is contrary to the Constitution or contains allegations which the Mover cannot substantiate. As noted earlier, the question of determining what constitutes gross violation of the Constitution or gross misconduct is one that clings and hangs on the impeachable authority of the House. It is exercisable in two instances. Firstly, at the point of the approval of the Special Motion for impeachment by the Speaker and at the point of investigations conducted by the relevant committee. In determining the admissibility of the Motion proposed by the Member, I am required to examine two key issues. The first issue is whether the proposed Motion meets the requirements of the Constitution and Standing Orders as to form and the threshold required to it. The second issue is whether the grounds as contained in the proposed Motion are admissible. On the first issue, I note that from a reading of Article 152(6) of the Constitution and Standing Order 66, a proposed Motion by a Member for the dismissal of a cabinet secretary must be supported by at least one-quarter of all Members of the Assembly. A quarter of all the Members of this Assembly is 87.25. In parliamentary practice, a decimal point is rounded off to a whole number. Consequently, the threshold for initiating a Motion for the dismissal of a cabinet secretary is 88 Members of this House. Standing Order 66 provides that the proposed Motion should be in writing; the proposed Motion should state the grounds and particulars in terms of Article 152(6) of the Constitution upon which the proposed Motion is made. The proposed Motion should be signed by the Member and signed in support by at least one-quarter of all the Members of the Assembly. Looking at the proposed Motion by the Member, I noted that pursuant to Article 152(6) of the Constitution and Standing Order 66, the Member has stated the grounds and given the particulars under which he proposes the dismissal of the Cabinet Secretary. Additionally, pursuant to Standing Order 66, the proposed Motion is also in writing and signed by the Hon. Member. Further, under Article 152(6) of the Constitution and Standing Order 66, the Hon. Member has attached a list of the signatures of 110 Members of the National Assembly who have signed the Motion in support."},{"id":1408035,"url":"http://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1408035/?format=json","text_counter":108,"type":"scene","speaker_name":"","speaker_title":"","speaker":null,"content":"(Several Members walked into the Chamber)"},{"id":1408036,"url":"http://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1408036/?format=json","text_counter":109,"type":"speech","speaker_name":"Hon. Speaker","speaker_title":"","speaker":null,"content":"Members at the back, please take the nearest seats. Hon. Jalang’o, take the nearest seat. Consequently, I find that the proposed Motion by the Member for Bumula, meets the requirements of Article 152(6) of the Constitution and Standing Order 66 as to form and the threshold required for a Member to move a Motion for dismissal of a cabinet secretary. This settles the First Issue. Moving to the second issue on the admissibility of the grounds specified in the Motion, under Standing Orders 64(1A) and 66, grounds cited in a Special Motion are admissible if: The electronic version of the Official Hansard Report is for information purposesonly. A certified version of this Report can be obtained from the Hansard Editor"},{"id":1408037,"url":"http://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1408037/?format=json","text_counter":110,"type":"speech","speaker_name":"Hon. Speaker","speaker_title":"","speaker":null,"content":"(a) Framed clearly to particularise and disclose a gross violation of the Constitution or other written law, where gross violation of the Constitution or other written law is indicated as a ground for the intended dismissal; (b) they state, with precision, the provisions of the Constitution or other written law that are alleged to have been grossly violated, where gross violation of the Constitution or other written law is indicated as a ground for the intended removal; and; (c) accompanied by necessary evidence, including annexures or sworn testimonies in respect of the allegations. Article 152(6) of the Constitution provides for three grounds for which a cabinet secretary may be removed from office. These are gross violation of the Constitution or any other law; serious reasons to believe that the cabinet secretary has committed a crime under national law; and gross misconduct. Permit me now to highlight the grounds specified in the Motion for dismissal of the Cabinet Secretary for Agriculture and Livestock Development. Hon. Members, on the ground of gross violation of the Constitution, the Member for Bumula Constituency has stated as follows in the proposed Motion. 1. That, the Cabinet Secretary has grossly violated the Constitution in particular Articles 2 and 10(1)(c) of the Constitution on national values and good governance for failure to undertake public participation with relevant stakeholders in the implementation of a far-reaching policy decision on the procurement and distribution of fertiliser. 2. That, the conduct of the Cabinet Secretary of approving procurement and distribution of fake fertiliser by the NCPB disclose a gross violation of national values and principles of good governance contrary to Article 10(1)(b) of the Constitution. 3. That, the conduct of the Cabinet Secretary of approving the procurement and distribution of fake fertiliser discloses a gross violation of the Constitution by infringing Article 46 of the Constitution on consumers rights to goods and services of reasonable quality and their protection of health, safety and economic interests. 4. That, the conduct of the Cabinet Secretary of approving the procurement and distribution of fake fertiliser amounts to gross violation of public trust and the Cabinet Secretary failed to demonstrate respect for the people, bring honour to the nation and dignity to the office and promote public confidence and integrity of the office contrary to Article 73(1) of the Constitution. 5. That, the conduct of the Cabinet Secretary of approving the procurement and distribution of fake fertiliser amounts to gross violation of the principles of public finance contrary to Article 201 of the Constitution as public money was not applied in a prudent and responsible way. 6. That, the conduct of the Cabinet Secretary in which he submitted to the Departmental Committee on Agriculture that NCPB signed an agency agreement with 51 Capital Africa Diatomite Industries for supply and distribution of GPC diatomaceous for its commercial function and that the product was not sold as a chemical fertiliser but a soil conditioner was in gross violation of Article 152(5) (a) and (e), (6), (7), (8), (9) and (10) of the Constitution. 7. That, the conduct of the Cabinet Secretary of overseeing the implementation of the budgets of the NCPB under his control for the procurement and distribution of fake fertiliser is a gross violation of values and principles of public service on use of resources efficiently, effectively and economically. The electronic version of the Official Hansard Report is for information purposesonly. A certified version of this Report can be obtained from the Hansard Editor"},{"id":1408038,"url":"http://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1408038/?format=json","text_counter":111,"type":"speech","speaker_name":"Hon. Speaker","speaker_title":"","speaker":null,"content":"Hon. Members, the proposed Motion also seeks the dismissal of the Cabinet Secretary for Agriculture on the ground of serious reasons for believing that he has committed a crime under national law. To this end, the Member for Bumula Constituency has stated as follows in the proposed Motion: 1. That, the conduct of the Cabinet Secretary discloses grounds that there are serious reasons for believing that the Cabinet secretary has committed a crime under national law involving offences relating to abuse of office and false claims contrary to sections 100 and 101 of the Penal Code. 2. That, the conduct of the Cabinet Secretary discloses grounds that there are serious reasons for believing that the Cabinet Secretary has committed a crime under national law relating to forgery, uttering false documents and procuring execution of documents by false pretences contrary to Sections 353 and 355 of the Penal Code. The Member further avers that the Cabinet Secretary is currently under investigation by the DCI following the findings of the court in FPL versus DPP and Three Others: Registrar of Companies and 10 Others 2021 e/<LR and is further facing arrest and prosecution in six pending civil, commercial and family suits. Hon. Members finally, on the third ground, the Member for Bumula Constituency seeks the dismissal of the Cabinet Secretary for Agriculture and Livestock Development on the grounds of gross misconduct and states as follows: 1. That the conduct of the Cabinet Secretary of getting into public spats with journalists who announced the distribution of the fake fertiliser, discloses the ground of gross misconduct in so far as, as a State officer, he has failed to demonstrate professionalism in carrying out duties of the office and in a manner that maintains public confidence in the integrity of the office contrary Section (11)(a) of the Leadership and Integrity Act Cap 185 (C). 2. That the conduct of the Cabinet Secretary of storming into the manufacturing plants and purporting to be revoking licenses without conducting investigations amounts to gross misconduct in so far as, as a State officer, he has failed to demonstrate professionalism in carrying out duties of the office and in a manner that maintains public confidence in the integrity of the office manner contrary to Section 11(a) of the Leadership and Integrity Act, Cap 185(c). 3. That the conduct of the Cabinet Secretary of approving procurement and distribution of fake fertilisers so far, as a State officer, he has failed to exercise public trust in the best interests of the people of Kenya, amounts to gross misconduct contrary to Section 8 of the Leadership and Integrity Act Cap 185(c) . 4. That, the conduct of the Cabinet Secretary of approving procurement and distribution of fake fertiliser in so far as a State officer, he has failed to exercise his duties to the best of his ability and to carry out the duties efficiently, honestly and in a transparent and accountable manner, and amounts to gross misconduct contrary to Section 10(a) and (b) of the Leadership and Integrity Act Cap 185. 5. That the conduct of the Cabinet Secretary of approving the procurement and distribution of fake fertiliser by the National Cereals and Produce Board discloses the ground of gross misconduct in so far as the State officer, has failed to demonstrate professionalism in carrying out duties of the office in a manner that maintains public confidence in the integrity of the office contrary to Section 11(a) of the Leadership and Integrity Act, Cap 185(c). The electronic version of the Official Hansard Report is for information purposesonly. A certified version of this Report can be obtained from the Hansard Editor"},{"id":1408039,"url":"http://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1408039/?format=json","text_counter":112,"type":"speech","speaker_name":"Hon. Speaker","speaker_title":"","speaker":null,"content":"6. That, the conduct of the Cabinet Secretary of approving the procurement and distribution of fake fertiliser by the NCPB and misleading the public by giving false information to the Departmental Committee on Agriculture that GPC Diatomaceous was distributed as soil conditioner and not fertiliser, amounts to gross misconduct, contrary to Section 29 of the Leadership and Integrity Act, Cap 185."},{"id":1408040,"url":"http://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1408040/?format=json","text_counter":113,"type":"speech","speaker_name":"Hon. Speaker","speaker_title":"","speaker":null,"content":"Hon. Members at the Bar, take the nearest seats."}]}