Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1169979,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1169979/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 159,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Kipipiri, JP",
    "speaker_title": "Hon. Amos Kimunya",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 174,
        "legal_name": "Amos Muhinga Kimunya",
        "slug": "amos-kimunya"
    },
    "content": " Hon. Temporary Deputy Chair, while I agree with the need for protection, I want to inform the Members that I had already provided for that in the Bill. Clause 5 basically protects any person who held office as a member of the board, or as an officer or a member of staff of the Authority. They shall continue to hold office as if they were appointed under this Act. So, every job is already saved. We went further to provide for all the obligations in Clause 4, that subject to this Act, rights, duties, obligations, assets and liabilities at the commencement of this section shall be transferred to the Service. So, the change of name does not affect the ongoing obligations or contracts. They will continue as if they were entered under this Act. All we are doing is changing the name from Authority to Service. All the ongoing obligations, including contracts with the contractors and tenderers, continue as if they were contracted with the Authority. That is the essence of the transitional clause that we put. Hon. Duale is limiting the term of the Commissioner-General and the board or commissioners. Those ones will be the only ones who will continue until the expiry of their terms. This has a contradiction for other members of staff, who are on a certain contract. What happens to them? We are talking of members of the board and the Commissioner-General. If you specify this, and you do not put the same specification for everyone else, you will get two different things. So, from your legal background, Hon. Temporary Deputy Chair, you can guide us on this. If it is already provided for, there is no additional value to be created by specifying these three officers, including the Commissioner-General and the board. The Commissioner-General and commissioners are members of staff of the Authority. So, they are already provided for, they are saved and I do not see what value we will be getting from this amendment. It is just a superfluous amendment that could also attract some litigation, since this has not been subjected to any public participation. The Bill has only been subjected to public participation with respect to the change of name. Change of officers and everything else has not been subjected to public participation. We could have this thing bringing a litigation that we are changing the terms of the Commissioner-General, and we are limiting it only to a term. We are saying that he is probably not eligible to start. We are then going further to re-designate the way they will be appointed, which is not part of the original Bill. That has not been subjected to any public participation. We do not know what the public would have said about it, hence, I would urge that we limit ourselves to the substance of the Bill and not expand its scope beyond what it was intended, which was to change the name from Revenue Authority to Revenue Service. I oppose the amendment."
}