Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1037577,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1037577/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 318,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Rarieda, ODM",
    "speaker_title": "Hon. (Dr.) Otiende Amollo",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 13465,
        "legal_name": "Paul Otiende Amollo",
        "slug": "paul-otiende-amollo"
    },
    "content": "Second, is to speak to the issue of an independent judiciary and that is in Article 2. Moreover, I have heard many of my colleagues talk about the idea of the Ombudsman. Let me assure them that if there is one person in this country who knows the work of the Ombudsman it is me. There is nothing undemocratic in having an Ombudsman to help the Judiciary be accountable to the people. This is because judicial power under Article 1 is delegated power. Moreover, if it is proposed in the BBI Article 172(a) that you are to have an Ombudsman who is nominated by the President but approved by the Senate and who therefore becomes part of the Judiciary to be an internal check in the Judiciary, there is nothing in eroding the independence of the Judiciary. In fact, it strengthens the independence of the Judiciary. I can assure you that as an Ombudsman, I spent five years trying to check on the excesses of judges and magistrates. Moreover, on every attempt, they would cite \"we are independent”. It led us to suggest to the Chief Justice to appoint an internal Ombudsman. As we speak today, none of those opposing the idea of an Ombudsman has ever suggested that the Ombudsman who has existed administratively in the Judiciary in the last five years is an erosion of independence. If it were, the Chief Justice himself would not have appointed them. However, in this case, the Ombudsman is to be appointed not to control the Judiciary but to help the Judiciary to be accountable to the people. The Ombudsman would be an ex-officio member of the Judicial Service Commission (JSC), would file annual reports to the JSC itself and to Parliament. How can that be an erosion? That is indeed emphasising the principle in Article 2 in terms of ensuring that the Judiciary- like Parliament and the rest of us - is accountable. Hon. Temporary Deputy Speaker, I support."
}