Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1067944,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1067944/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 111,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Homa Bay Town, ODM",
    "speaker_title": "Hon. Peter Kaluma",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 1565,
        "legal_name": "George Peter Opondo Kaluma",
        "slug": "george-peter-opondo-kaluma"
    },
    "content": "Hon. Speaker, I will appreciate if the consultations could go down a bit. Some of us never focus when consultations are very loud. Hon. Speaker, I am an advocate. I still go to our courts. I am one Member of Parliament who believes that I will retire in the Judiciary. Therefore, I will not support anything that undermines the independence of the Judiciary any day. In fact, let me confirm that I am possibly the only Member of Parliament sitting here today who has written a book on judicial independence. Clause 42 says that: “The judiciary ombudsman will be a member of the Judicial Service Commission in ex-officio capacity.” How does that undermine the independence of the Judicial Service Commission? The work of a judicial ombudsman is to investigate and receive complaints and prosecute those complaints before the Judicial Service Commission. How will he perform the functions that we are giving him if we do not make him an ex-officio member of the Commission? It has been said that the judiciary ombudsman will not vote. However, that is what we have put in the legislation at Clause 44. I want to be heard on Clause 44. My own spouse is in the Judiciary. I will be joining that Judiciary. In Clause 44, we are saying that the President will nominate the judiciary ombudsman and upon vetting or approval by the Senate, he will appoint him. What is the problem with that? Towards the end, Clause 44 says that Parliament will enact legislation to give better effect to the provision establishing the judiciary ombudsman. What does that provision avail to us as Members? It means that Parliament will make prescriptions in terms of how the President will reach the number of people to nominate from. Therefore, it will be in order in that legislation for Parliament to say that neither the Judicial Service Commission nor whichever body will invite applications, will shortlist, will interview and will present to the President a prescribed number from whom he can nominate. How can that be unconstitutional? It is not. Moreover, let me tell you Members, the problem we have in Kenya is trust-deficit. Go to the United States of America (USA), the United Kingdom (UK) and the Scandinavian countries, and to all developed democracies. Is it not true that if you go to the USA, all judges are appointed by the President having been initially nominated by him and then approved by the Senate? There is nothing like that. We still have Article 160 on the independence of the Judiciary. 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."
}