{"count":1608389,"next":"http://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/?format=json&page=157138","previous":"http://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/?format=json&page=157136","results":[{"id":1589562,"url":"http://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1589562/?format=json","text_counter":98,"type":"speech","speaker_name":"Mr. Elias Mutuma","speaker_title":"","speaker":null,"content":"again the intervention of the Speaker, these two members rise and they proceed to second the motion. Who invites them to the Floor? Who is presiding over this House? Let us go on. The two Members support the withdrawal of the Motion and the Speaker is seen for the very first time. There is no question put for Members. There is no vote that has taken place. However, the Speaker proceeds to say- “Members, the notice of the Special Motion on the Removal from Office, by Impeachment, of the Governor of Isiolo County, issued on Tuesday, 10th June, 2025 has been officially removed as requested by the Mover, Hon. Abubakar, Member for Sericho Ward. We now proceed to the next business.” So, who approved this withdrawal? Where is the vote? Hon. Senators, we proceed to the HANSARD of 26th when the Governor is being purportedly impeached. That is at page 23 of the same document. There is a Communication from the Chair. The first order of business, you will come across the Order Paper at page 17, where we have a total of eight orders of the day. However, when you go to page 23, we do not see the Clerk calling out the Orders. Just look at it. It is the Speaker directly proceeding to make a communication. Is that an anomaly, hon. Senators? We are all familiar with the business of the day. What intrigues me more is that the first order of the day here is to lay on the table the purported public participation report, which is done by hon. David Lemantile, allegedly. He prosecutes his Motion and argues on the public participation. Let us go to the end at page 31. Before that, let us go to page 30, where he completes his submissions. After laying the paper on public participation, we now see Hon. Peter Losu standing up to second this Motion. Who has invited him to second this Motion? Out of nowhere, he is not invited by anyone, but the HANSARD shows that he rose to second this Motion, and then the Speaker proposes the question and opens the floor to the Members of the House. At page 31, the last Member seen to be speaking is Hon. Francisco Letimalo. The Speaker now puts the question. So, what happens after the question was put, hon. Senators? There is no record whatsoever of what transpired. Nothing. A question is put. There is no indication that the House actually endorsed the public participation report. That HANSARD is left hanging. Hon. Senators, after that paper is laid, the Speaker does not even call for the next order. The Clerk is not seen anywhere calling for the next order. Instead, what do we see? Hon. Abubakar Godana is seen now on the floor. HANSARDs are supposed to be capturing verbatim what transpired. So, who was in charge of this House? Where is the Speaker's recording inviting the Mover of the Motion to move the Motion? Where is the recording of the Clerk calling for the next order? There is nothing. Instead, we just see someone on the floor prosecuting the Motion and he proceeds and proceeds. At page 35, he is done. Strangely, the first paragraph at the top of page 35, when he completes to execute his Motion, he does not invite anyone to even second. Records are there. However, we see one Hon. Major Goricha now standing up to second the Motion. Who has invited him? There is no one. The electronic version of the Senate Hansard Report is for information purposesonly. A certified version of this Report can be obtained from the Director, Hansard and AudioServices, Senate."},{"id":1589563,"url":"http://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1589563/?format=json","text_counter":99,"type":"speech","speaker_name":"Mr. Elias Mutuma","speaker_title":"","speaker":null,"content":"Strangely now, the House is suddenly in an autopilot. From Hon. Major, then we see the Speaker opening the Floor. You have Hon. Peter Losu. He continues. Without the intervention of the Speaker, there is another Member, Hon. Salesio Kiambi, who proceeds, as if the Speaker and the Clerk are not in the House. Another Member just rises up from nowhere. There is no recording of the Speaker inviting any Member to make a contribution to this Motion, apart from, of course, page 39, when suddenly the person ‘cooking’ this HANSARD realizes the Speaker has not been captured in this. Now, we see the Speaker for the first time. In conclusion, because I do not want to take more time on this since my senior is going to take time to address you on the other issue, look at page 41. After the Members purportedly complete to make their submissions, the Speaker makes very strange remarks and I quote- “Clerk, is the Governor or his legal representative available? Serjeant-at- Arms, can you check around if the Governor or his legal representative are present?” The Speaker does not even take time to communicate to the House whether the Governor had been invited. He does not even read that invitation notice as required. So, why is he calling for the Governor, whom learned counsel had told you was invited to appear at 9.00 a.m. and we are at 12 o'clock? The Speaker is not seen anywhere saying that we invited the Governor vide this letter and he has not come, but instead asked the clerk to check whether the Governor is available anywhere. Let us proceed, I am concluding. This is going to shock you. When the Governor was confirmed not to be in the House, the Speaker proceeds to guide the House on the next move. At the end of that page 41, I read what the Speaker says. I am reading the last part. “When the doors have been locked, the bar drawn and the names of the tellers have been announced, the Speaker shall put the question again in the presence of the tellers. When called out, each Member shall thereupon rise in his or her place and declare assent or dissent to the question in the following manner; I vote ‘yes’ or I vote ‘nay.’ It proceeds on page 42. Where does the Speaker put that question to the Members of the House present? There is no question put whatsoever. She has just told them that he needs to put that question again. There is no question put. So, what were these Members voting for or against? There is no question put. We then need to sit here and invite witnesses on the stand to demonstrate that there were no proceedings that took place on 26th and 18th. I rest my case."},{"id":1589564,"url":"http://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1589564/?format=json","text_counter":100,"type":"speech","speaker_name":"Mr. Elisha Ongoya","speaker_title":"","speaker":null,"content":"Thank you, Mr. Speaker and distinguished Senators. I will proceed to argue the final limb of the objection, but just to cap up what my learned colleagues have told you, that before you is a purported HANSARD in the form and content that you have been taken through. If before you is a purported HANSARD that no one has taken the courage of his or her conviction to certify, if somebody brought before this House a HANSARD that is not certified, because certification is done by a particular officer whose signature we can tell, is what is before you a HANSARD of the County Assembly of Isiolo or a mere piece of paper? The electronic version of the Senate Hansard Report is for information purposesonly. A certified version of this Report can be obtained from the Director, Hansard and AudioServices, Senate."},{"id":1589565,"url":"http://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1589565/?format=json","text_counter":101,"type":"speech","speaker_name":"Mr. Elisha Ongoya","speaker_title":"","speaker":null,"content":"If we conclude, as I invite you to, that what is before you is a mere piece of paper to the extent that it is not certified, can we take any other proceedings on the strength of that mere piece of paper? That is what makes this issue a proper preliminary objection for resolution one way or the other before we can go into the trial. Secondly is the issue of the order of the court. I want to address this issue as follows. We are guided by the Constitution and other laws, the Standing Orders and to an extent, the manuals that this House publishes from time to time, to inform both these Members and the members of the public who interact with this House. My research has revealed that the latest manual issued by this House is a manual entitled “ Removal from Office of County Governors and Deputy County Governorsthrough Impeachment, an easy-to-use manual on the procedures and rules ”. That manual, on the face of it, was published by the Directorate of Legal Services and the Senate Liaison Office in the year 2025, which is this year. Part three of that manual is entitled “ Judicial Proceedings against Impeachment”. This is the position this House has communicated in that manual at page 60, which is the very last page of that manual. There are two subtitles at page 60 of that manual. Subtitle one, Comply with Court"},{"id":1589566,"url":"http://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1589566/?format=json","text_counter":102,"type":"scene","speaker_name":"","speaker_title":"","speaker":null,"content":"Orders"},{"id":1589567,"url":"http://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1589567/?format=json","text_counter":103,"type":"speech","speaker_name":"Mr. Elisha Ongoya","speaker_title":"","speaker":null,"content":". It says- “Parliamentary Privilege and Immunity and the Principle of Separation of Powers do not shield the county assemblies and the Senate from court orders. When court orders are issued, they are binding on the County Assembly and the Senate and must be complied with. Failure to comply with court orders may result in the invalidation of the entire process of impeachment by the courts.” The second subtitle is “ Participate Actively in Court Proceedings ”. This Senate has communicated to us through this manual that ignoring court orders against the County Assembly or the Senate is not the solution. If court orders are issued against a County Assembly or the Senate, the most preferable option is to participate actively in the court proceedings. The County Assembly or the Senate may apply for review of the court orders or appeal to the next court for variation or the setting aside of the court orders. That is the manual that this House has published as late as this year. Allow me to make the following submissions then. The existence of the orders of court I am going to refer to is not a disputed fact. It is a fact admitted by the County Assembly in their written submissions. The existence of these orders is not a contested issue. It not being contested, it follows therefore that this Senate can proceed right away to resolve the question of the impact of those orders without investigating whether they exist or not. This is because between the parties, it is an admitted fact. Allow me to begin by referring this Senate to an earlier ruling of the Speaker of the then only House of Parliament, which was the National Assembly, before the new Constitution. This was the ruling by Speaker Kenneth Otiato Marende on the question of nominations of Chief Justice, Attorney General, Director of Public Prosecutions and Controller of Budget. That ruling was made on the 17th of February 2011. You will find that ruling starting at page 165 of Volume No.IV of the Governor's documents. The relevant Part I will refer to in the interest of time is at page 168 of that volume; Volume No.IV of the Governor's response. At page 168 is a continuation of that The electronic version of the Senate Hansard Report is for information purposesonly. A certified version of this Report can be obtained from the Director, Hansard and AudioServices, Senate."},{"id":1589568,"url":"http://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1589568/?format=json","text_counter":104,"type":"speech","speaker_name":"Mr. Elisha Ongoya","speaker_title":"","speaker":null,"content":"ruling of the then Speaker of the National Assembly, Hon. Kenneth Otiato Marende. He says, and I quote- “Hon. Members, between the time when Mr. Imanyara first raised the matter and now, I have had the benefit of considering a range of material addressing the various aspects of the matter. Specifically, I have benefited from, among others, the position taken by the Judicial Service Commission, the Commission on Implementation of the Constitution and the Law Society of Kenya. I have also carefully read and considered the ruling of the High Court relating to the matter of nominations, which was delivered on 3rd February 2011.” I had the rare privilege of participating in that court proceeding. The first three of these bodies are constitutional or statutory and their views on matters of law, though not binding to this House, are of significant persuasive value. As for the ruling of the High Court, despite my restatement of the constitutional relationship between the legislature and the judiciary; I have repeatedly emphasized that while subsisting judicial decisions cannot restrain the legislature - that is important to us because I am addressing this issue - from the discharge of its functions, are of binding persuasive value and should not restrain the legislature from the discharge of its functions and are of binding effect and may have a bearing on the products emanating from this House. The learned Hon. Justice Musinga in his ruling in the above case found that the nomination of the Chief Justice was unconstitutional, for it was not in accordance with Article 166 of the Constitution. I will then proceed to page 169 of that Volume in the interest of time, the third paragraph starting with “honorable Members”. “Although I have read that this court decision does not stop the National Assembly from proceeding with its work and cannot determine for the House how to proceed; it must be noted, as matters currently stand, that any decision made by this House on the nomination, though perfectly procedural from the point of view of the legislature, outside the legislature, it is to the extent that it does not accord with the ruling of the court, null and void for all purposes.” That is the guidance that Hon. Marende makes. Mr. Speaker, Sir, allow me to come to the specific ruling that we wish to draw this Senate's attention to. I refer you to Volume No.4."},{"id":1589569,"url":"http://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1589569/?format=json","text_counter":105,"type":"scene","speaker_name":"","speaker_title":"","speaker":null,"content":"(Mr. Elisha Ongoya was given a different portable microphone)"},{"id":1589570,"url":"http://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1589570/?format=json","text_counter":106,"type":"speech","speaker_name":"Mr. Elisha Ongoya","speaker_title":"","speaker":null,"content":"Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Sir. As someone who has been here multiple times, I am always impressed by the support we get from the administrative teams in this Senate. That may have to go on record in the interest of posterity. At page 13 of Volume No.4 is a decision of the court in Isiolo High Court Constitutional Petition No.A004 of 2025. The parties are Hon. Abdi Ibrahim Hassan, the Governor before you as the Petitioner and the County Assembly of Isiolo, now before you as the First Respondent. There are two other parties in that matter, but it is safe to The electronic version of the Senate Hansard Report is for information purposesonly. A certified version of this Report can be obtained from the Director, Hansard and AudioServices, Senate."},{"id":1589571,"url":"http://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1589571/?format=json","text_counter":107,"type":"speech","speaker_name":"Mr. Elisha Ongoya","speaker_title":"","speaker":null,"content":"highlight that the parties before you are parties in that suit. They are, therefore, bound by the decision of that court. I will just go straight page 27. You will find that paragraph 28 of that Ruling where the Judge observes as follows- “It is important to note that there was no complaint raised when the first orders were issued by the court in respect of the Motion dated 10th June, 2025 that was to be debated on 17th June 2025.” In fact, the sentiments by the Mover of that Motion, the contemnor, vindicates the court as he has in his affidavit, conceded that the Motion was defective in substance and marred with procedural irregularities; the very grounds that the Petitioner has sought to rely on. The Mover of this Motion went and told the court that, it is true that the orders you gave first were right because the Motion I had tabled was marred. It was defective in substance and marred with procedural irregularities. Allow me to then take you to paragraphs 45, 46, and 47 of that Ruling at page 35 of Volume No.4. In paragraph 45, the Judge says- “Therefore, it is the finding of this court that the Motion dated 18th June, 2025 and debated by the First Respondent on 26th June, 2025 was in contravention of the conservatory orders of this court issued on 25th June, 2025. Hence, the resolution arising therefrom is null and void.” Once an act is declared null and void, it is of no legal consequence. A court of law has found that this Motion which has now been brought here before you Senators, is null and void. It is of no legal consequence. Paragraph 46 has stated that the resolution has evidently been submitted to the Speaker of the Senate. It is thus upon the Senate, once informed of the orders herein, which I am now doing, to determine if it will proceed to handle the said resolution, thus abating a blatant disregard of the rule of law or the respect of orders. The matter at hand calls for a stand to be taken by the constitutional organs involved. What they choose to do will have set a precedent on the necessity for compliance with court orders. It is a choice between anarchy and constitutionalism. Distinguished Senators, the judge is saying this; I am aware and I cannot stop you from doing your work. He is saying; proceed and go to the Senate. To my mind, that was an extremely wise move by the Judge considering historical pleas for there to be an institutional committee between institutions and to respect the powers of each organ. However, the judge is also saying; you decide for yourselves how you will proceed. I have made a finding that that Motion is null and void and of no effect. Mr. Speaker, Sir, I will contradistinguish this with other scenarios that the other side will draw your attention to shortly. The judge has not issued a conservatory order against the Senate. The judge has made a determination on the validity of the Motion purportedly debated and purportedly approved by the County Assembly of Isiolo. The Judge has made a determination that it is null and void, and of no legal consequence. You are being invited to engage with this Motion on that strength of fact and on the strength of the finding by the Judge that the Motion as approved, and as brought before you, is null and void, and of no legal effect. We, therefore, invite you to introspect and make this determination. When the impeachment law calls upon you to determine a The electronic version of the Senate Hansard Report is for information purposesonly. A certified version of this Report can be obtained from the Director, Hansard and AudioServices, Senate."}]}