Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 102249,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/102249/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 386,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Eng. Gumbo",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 24,
        "legal_name": "Nicholas Gumbo",
        "slug": "nicholas-gumbo"
    },
    "content": "Thank you, Madam Temporary Deputy Speaker, for giving me this chance to contribute to this Report. I will try to be brief so that some of my colleagues may also contribute. Allow me to start by commending the Departmental Committee on Transport, Public Works and Housing which is headed by my good friend, the hon. Were, for doing a commendable job. But we are Parliament, and Parliament derives its mandate from the constitution, the law and our own Standing Orders. Anything that violates that law cannot be a good report of Parliament. In its own Report, at the introduction, the Committee says: “The appointment of the Managing Director of Kenya Airports Authority is vested in the Minister of Transport after consultations with the board, as stipulated in the KAA Act, Cap. 395 part 2 (6).” Madam Temporary Deputy Speaker, those are the fundamentals. Indeed, this interview that we are being told about was not even necessary. What the law says is very simple; the Minister consults the board to appoint the MD of KAA. Was that done or was it not done? When we go into issues, like, for example, the Committee recommending that a recruiting agency should be barred without reasons; are we now saying that it is the duty of Parliament to micro-manage State corporations? The answer is no. I want us, as representatives of our people, to stick to the law. We cannot make laws in this House and violate the same laws. For this Report to have credibility, it should tell us which part of the law has been violated by this recommendation. Without that, we are presenting before Parliament a report that cannot stand the test of scrutiny. The Committee has not told us why it is recommending that the process be started afresh. There are only three recommendations in this Report. What are they basing their recommendation on? What was done wrong with the process as it went through to the Minister? We cannot come here and compare processes which are not the same. The Minister is mandated by the law to receive a report from the board and appoint the MD. Did he or did he not do that? Madam Temporary Deputy Speaker, with all due respect to my colleagues in the Committee, this report has no basis to recommend that the process of recruiting the MD of KAA be repeated. The Minister has done his job in accordance with the law, and this House has no other option other than to reject this Report. With those remarks, I oppose."
}