{"count":1608389,"next":"http://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/?format=json&page=157141","previous":"http://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/?format=json&page=157139","results":[{"id":1589592,"url":"http://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1589592/?format=json","text_counter":128,"type":"speech","speaker_name":"Mr. Paul Nyamodi","speaker_title":"","speaker":null,"content":"As I have said, in a most unusual way, he is a witness for the Governor. He makes certain averments in that affidavit, which we need to test. Those averments have been repeated by other witnesses. It is those averments that have been relied on by my learned colleagues on the other side, in support of their assertion that there is, indeed, a preliminary issue that requires consideration and needs to be determined as a preliminary issue."},{"id":1589593,"url":"http://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1589593/?format=json","text_counter":129,"type":"speech","speaker_name":"Mr. Paul Nyamodi","speaker_title":"","speaker":null,"content":"Mr. Speaker, Sir, I wish to cede the remainder of our time to my colleague, Mr. Mawira. As I take my seat, I wish to make the following suggestion. It is apparent in a rather blatant manner that the issues that have been brought as preliminary issues before you are not preliminary issues, whereas they may be issues that are fit and proper for the determination of this House, but they are not fit and proper for determination as preliminary objections."},{"id":1589594,"url":"http://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1589594/?format=json","text_counter":130,"type":"speech","speaker_name":"Mr. Paul Nyamodi","speaker_title":"","speaker":null,"content":"My suggestion is that the preliminary objections be dismissed and that the Governor has an opportunity to ventilate those issues as in his evidence in opposition to the Motion, and that this House then makes a determination on those issues once it has had the benefit of hearing testimony from both sides and both sides have had an opportunity to test that testimony. I am much obliged."},{"id":1589595,"url":"http://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1589595/?format=json","text_counter":131,"type":"speech","speaker_name":"Mr. Boniface Mawira","speaker_title":"","speaker":null,"content":"Mr. Speaker, Sir, my name is Mwereru Boniface Mawira. I will take the remaining time to buttress the submission that have been made by learned senior."},{"id":1589596,"url":"http://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1589596/?format=json","text_counter":132,"type":"speech","speaker_name":"Mr. Boniface Mawira","speaker_title":"","speaker":null,"content":"For most, Mr. Speaker, Sir, and Members of this House, it is not contested that there is no conservatory order stopping the Senate from considering the Impeachment Motion that is before you. There is no order by court injuncting or enjoining this House not to proceed with the business of the hearing. What the Governor is challenging or impugns is the validity or otherwise of the Impeachment Motion that is before you. I submit that the question of validity of the Impeachment Motion is a question of interpretation and is reserved for the judicial arm or branch of Government at the opportune time. As my learned senior, Mr. Nyamodi, has already submitted, we have authorities in the submission that we filed in response, and this honourable House has given rulings in previous matters, including the previous ruling in the matter of the impeachment of the Governor of Kericho on the legislative processes that are before Parliament. The moment this House or Parliament is seized with a resolution by a county assembly to remove a governor from office, this House becomes irreversibly seized of 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":1589597,"url":"http://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1589597/?format=json","text_counter":133,"type":"speech","speaker_name":"Mr. Boniface Mawira","speaker_title":"","speaker":null,"content":"that impeachment motion and no order of court can stop this honourable House from conducting its business. More importantly, our position has been adopted not only by the Senate or this Parliament, but by other parliaments world over. We have authority in the report of the Committee on the proposed removal from office of the Governor of Embu County, that the Senate becomes irreversibly seized of the matter, the moment the Speaker of the Senate receives a letter from the speaker of the county assembly communicating the resolution of the assembly to remove a governor from office. The committee went ahead to quote similar positions adopted by parliaments in other jurisdictions, including Ghana, Sri Lanka and the United States."},{"id":1589598,"url":"http://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1589598/?format=json","text_counter":134,"type":"speech","speaker_name":"Mr. Boniface Mawira","speaker_title":"","speaker":null,"content":"The position that has been taken by this House in previous impeachment proceedings has been adopted by the highest court in the Republic. The Supreme Court in the matter of the former Governor of Embu County, Martin Nyaga Wambora and the Court of Appeal have agreed with this House that the judicial arm of the state cannot direct Parliament on what to do and what not to do. Mr. Speaker, Sir, therefore, it follows that at the opportune time when this honourable House has conducted its proceedings, these proceedings will then fall before the judicial arm of the state. At that time, the judicial arm of the state will have every opportunity to test the proceedings of this House for constitutional compliance. It is common ground that the proper judge of compliance with the Constitution and the Standing Orders of this House and the statutes relating to removal proceedings of a governor is the Judiciary. The question or the point that is not agreeable by both sides is, at what point the courts can stop an inquiry for an ongoing constitutional process that is before the legislative assemblies."},{"id":1589599,"url":"http://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1589599/?format=json","text_counter":135,"type":"speech","speaker_name":"Mr. Boniface Mawira","speaker_title":"","speaker":null,"content":"The Supreme Court in the matter of Martin Nyaga Wambora had occasion to deliberate on this issue. On pages six and seven of our submissions, you will find an exposition of what the Supreme Court said. It explicitly forbids the courts from granting orders that stop ongoing proceedings that are before legislative assemblies. I will quote what the court said on page 7. It states- “No Governmental agency should encumber another to stall the constitutional motions of the other. The best practices from the comparative lesson signal that the judicial organ must practice the greatest care in determining the merits of each case.” A question then arises. The governor impugns or challenges the validity of the impeachment motion due to the validity of the court order that was given, yet the court order which is the basis of the challenge that the governor has put up to the propriety of these proceedings is also in question. The validity of that court order is in question because the highest court in the Republic has affirmed what this House has stated on numerous occasions; that the judicial arm of the State, though it can intervene to stop or to check for constitutional compliance, that process before the legislative assembly should be left to run its full course, and at the opportune time, the judicial arm of the State can intervene to check the propriety of those proceedings. 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":1589600,"url":"http://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1589600/?format=json","text_counter":136,"type":"speech","speaker_name":"Mr. Boniface Mawira","speaker_title":"","speaker":null,"content":"Mr. Speaker, Sir, Section 5 of the Judicial Act provides for the hierarchy of laws in our Republic. The Constitution is at the top. The apex court in the Republic as per our Constitution is the Supreme Court. The Court of Appeal is next. The decision of the Supreme Court as per Article 163(5) of the Constitution, are binding on the High Court. The same goes for the decision from the Court of Appeal. The question, therefore, is: can these honourable House be stopped by a court that has disregarded binding precedent? Can this court be stopped by a court that itself is lacking in jurisdiction? Our answer to that question is that you should proceed unhindered, undeterred and render a decision or determination on the impeachment Motion on the merits, upon hearing the witnesses that are to be called by the respective parties. The danger is, if this honourable House was to terminate the proceedings at this stage, then it would set a very dangerous precedent. That dangerous precedent is that all that a governor would need to do is to move to court and obtain an order, either quashing the impeachment proceedings before they even begin or stopping this House from considering the impeachment Motion before it is even seized with that impeachment Motion. Therefore, the Senate would have abdicated its role as a defender of devolution and its oversight mechanism in the removal from office proceedings of county governance. Mr. Speaker, Sir, as you deliberate on that issue, we sound that caution that whatever is established today, will have an implication on future impeachment processes that will be brought before this House. On the second ground, Counsel for the Governor has referred to affidavits by the Clerk of the Assembly and the AP Commander of Isiolo County. All these affidavits have been referred to, to persuade you that there was no sitting by the Assembly on the 26th June, 2025, when the impeachment Motion was approved by the County Assembly. The question that arises, is whether the contents of those affidavits are to be believed without testing the evidence of those witnesses under oath. So, the way I see it, the Governor is asking for a full trial. By making a reference to those affidavits, it must be taken that the Governor concedes that, that preliminary objection is not based on a pure point of law that can be canvassed by counsel without reference to affidavits by witnesses. The reason we file affidavits before you is to give advance notice to the other party, so that the other party can prepare on how to test the truthfulness, credibility and veracity of those witnesses, when they take the stand to give evidence before this House. Mr. Speaker, Sir, the contents of those affidavits, the depositions that are contained in those affidavits, would have to be tested by way of cross-examination of the witnesses for this honourable House to make a conclusion on that question as to whether there was a sitting. The same goes for the HANSARD that is impugned by the Clerk of the County Assembly on oath. With regard to the question of the alleged forgery of the HANSARD, all the Counsel of the Governor has done, is to make reference to an affidavit by a witness. Counsel was submitting on a preliminary on what is supposed to be a preliminary point of law. It is no longer a preliminary point of law, if counsel does not restrict himself and now takes the posture of the witness and testifies on behalf of 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."},{"id":1589601,"url":"http://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1589601/?format=json","text_counter":137,"type":"speech","speaker_name":"Mr. Boniface Mawira","speaker_title":"","speaker":null,"content":"witness, on what they have deponed under oath in an affidavit. At the opportune time, we will be praying to cross-examine those witnesses in order to establish the truth. The further question that arises, as I conclude, is the Clerk of the Assembly, under the County Assembly Services Act, is required to render expert, non-partisan advice to the Speaker and to the House on procedural matters and on all other matters that are before the House. We will be craving for an opportunity to cross-examine the Clerk on all the issues that counsel has alluded to, in trying to persuade you, Hon. Speaker and the House, that you dispose of the issue of whether there was a sitting and whether there was forgery of the HANSARD at this preliminary trial. A mini trial that the Governor requested for - a trial within a trial - is not necessary if the issues that are to be canvassed during that mini trial, can be established in the full trial. The issues of the sitting of the Assembly, alleged fraud and alleged forgery are matters that belong to the full trial. It is for the Governor to prove that, indeed, there was forgery because he is the one who alleges forgery of the HANSARD report and that there was no sitting. It is for the Government to prove, through evidence, that is going to be tested by way of cross-examination at the trial. Therefore, reducing that issue - and it is a very germane issue - of the cheating and alleged forgery to a matter that can be handled at this stage without leading evidence, is not only inappropriate, but against the best interest of justice. It is because the County Assembly will not have the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses that are being called and whose affidavits have been referenced to by the Governor's council in making that preliminary point. In conclusion, it is only after a lengthy and a drawn-out hearing in the main trial that all these issues that are couched as preliminary objections, can be sufficiently addressed. I will say one last thing on that issue of the court order before I sit and give a few minutes to my colleague, Mr. Muriuki. The court order that the Governor has alluded to, is not to be looked at just as a standalone issue. It is essentially an attack on the jurisdiction of the House to hear the impeachment Motion that this House is seized of. The question, as I said before, is if a court whose jurisdiction is challenged--- In fact, Mr. Speaker, Sir, I was in those proceedings and the jurisdiction of the court was challenged. The court has not rendered a decision on a preliminary objection that was filed, but the court proceeded to grant the orders that were granted. Can a court whose jurisdiction is challenged and which court, the apex court in the Republic together with the Court of Appeal, have held that, that court is bereft of jurisdiction, take away the jurisdiction of this House, which is constitutional in nature? The jurisdiction of this House to oversight county assemblies is constitutional in nature. Can a court acting in excess of jurisdiction take away the constitutional mandate of this House? As Mr. Nyamodi quoted just before I took the stand, the decision on the validity of that court order comes into play. There is no need for that court order to be set aside. The moment that court order was given by a court that has disregarded binding precedence from the Supreme Court, from the Court of Appeal and acted in excess of jurisdiction, that order is a nullity in law. 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."}]}