Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1001586,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1001586/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 160,
    "type": "other",
    "speaker_name": "",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "exercise his or her responsibilities under Standing Order No.47 (3) whenever such a motion is submitted for approval. Indeed, at the close of the 11thParliament, the House amended the Standing Orders to entrench the thresholds established by the court in Standing Order 230 on the procedure for the removal from office of a member of a commission or the holder of an independent office. This high threshold should not be viewed as a barrier to removal from office, but rather, as a safeguard from any unjustified witch-hunt on members of independent offices and constitutional commissions. As Members are aware, under the provisions of Article 75(3) of the Constitution, a person who has been dismissed or otherwise removed from office for misconduct in a State office is disqualified from holding any other State office. Indeed, Members must also be cautious to note that removal processes are aimed at checking on the conduct and capacity of members of the constitutional commissions and, hence, should not be instigated where there are no defined grounds touching on the competence, capacity and integrity of a commissioner. Further, allow me to refer to the High Court Petition No. 518 of 2013 in the matter of the Independence of Constitutional Commissions and Independent Offices between the JudicialService Commission versus the Speaker of the National Assembly where the court observed as follows in paragraph 204- 204. “In that light, removal can be said to be the ultimate sanction in the oversight process which is otherwise routine. The ultimate threat of the sanction of removal is in and of itself, a tool for regulating the conduct of commissioners and independent office holders while in office. It is intended as the ultimate check on the competence, capacity and integrity of such commissioners and office holders. It is the oversight tool of last resort. The process of removal touches personally upon, and is concerned with, the conduct or capacity of individual members of a commission” Hon. Members, may I also remind this House that based on the precedents set in this House and our courts, any removal proceedings are bound to and must adhere to the provisions of the Constitution as entrenched in Article 47 and further extrapolated in the Fair Administrative Action Act No. 4 of 2015. As Members may be aware, removal proceedings of members of constitutional commissions are quasi-judicial in nature. The Black’s Law Dictionary defines the terms “ quasi-judicial process” as “ a term applied to the action of bodies which are required to investigate or ascertain the existence of facts, hold hearings, weigh evidence and draw conclusions from them as a basis for their official action and to exercise discretion of judicial nature”. Hon. Members, the question that therefore arises is this: What does the law require of any person exercising a quasi-judicial function? Such a person must adhere to the requirements of fair administrative action. Article 47 of the Constitution which entrenches the right to fair administrative action provides that every person has the right to administrative action that is expeditious, efficient, lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair. It is also a fundamental right that any person that has been or is likely to be adversely affected by administrative action; the person has the right to be given written reasons for the action. The courts have also been very specific and emphatic on the need for Parliament to adhere to the requirements of the Fair Administrative Action in conducting removal processes of members of constitutional commissions and independent offices. For instance, in the High Court Case, Miscellaneous Application No. 18 of 2017, the one of Mr. Edward Ouko versus the NationalAssembly and others, a suit which the Member for Rarieda, Hon. Otiende Amollo, is certainly 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."
}