HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept
{
"id": 1175136,
"url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1175136/?format=api",
"text_counter": 115,
"type": "other",
"speaker_name": "",
"speaker_title": "",
"speaker": null,
"content": "indication of whether the Committee, at the very least, invited the Vice-Chancellors of all the 52 chartered universities, 32 of which are public, and the 12 universities with letters of interim authority to make representations on the Bill. There is no mention of whether the Committee invited and considered the crucial input of stakeholders such as the Commission on University Education and the existing Universities Fund Board, and whether it considered their views. If it did, there is no record of it in their Report to the House and the addendum to the Report. To my mind, a meaningful public participation exercise should mirror the current practice adopted by the Departmental Committee on Finance and National Planning, which invites its principal stakeholders to make submissions on any business appearing before them, even if they do not send any memoranda. This allows them a broad perspective over the issues under their consideration, whether or not such stakeholders opt to submit memoranda in response to a call for public participation. The paucity of the Committee Report becomes more glaring when one takes into account the allegations made on the Floor of the House, that the response to the Committee’s invitation for public participation drew rather partisan submissions, including submissions from a forum said to represent the Vice-Chancellors of universities, instead of the actual Vice-Chancellors. I am of the opinion that the exercise conducted by the Committee would have been sufficient if it involved its key stakeholders and persons directly affected by the Bill by default. Hon. Members, finally on the fourth and last issue, which is whether the harmonisation of amendments proposed to the Bill was properly executed, I note that Standing Order No.131 is a device that assists committees to harmonise amendments thus, in effect, assisting the House and Members to avoid unnecessary objections during the Committee of the whole House stage. I, however, note that a number of Members who joined issue with the Hon. Ichung’wah noted that they proposed amendments to the Bill, but their efforts to have their issues addressed during the harmonisation process envisaged under Standing Order No.131 was less than fruitful. From the foregoing, this indicates that the harmonisation or the winnowing process under Standing Order No.131 by the Committee on Education and Research did not meet the dictates of the said Standing Order. Hon. Members, I note that lack of the harmonisation process does not in any way impede a Member from proceeding with their amendments in the House and, indeed, as ably noted by Hon. (Dr.) Wilberforce Ojiambo Oundo, the amendments proposed by the Members were included in the Order Paper for the Afternoon Sitting of the House yesterday, and are also included in the Order Paper for this particular Sitting. A committee directed to conduct the harmonisation process under Standing Order No.131 must demonstrate compliance with the Standing Order. It however appears – from the submissions made by the Members in yesterday’s afternoon Sitting and the plethora of amendments contained in the Order Paper – that the winnowing process failed to meet the bare minimum of the expectations of Standing Order No.131. In light of the foregoing, what then is the prudent action to be taken at this stage of the Bill, in view of the concerns raised? At the outset, I note that in addition to the concerns raised by the various Hon. Members, the Bill has attracted numerous amendments, as may be seen from the Order Paper. This, in my view, is a pointer to the need for a re-think of the Bill by its proponents. Insisting on prosecution of the Bill in its current form, despite the objections, questions of constitutionality, concerns on the quality of public participation undertaken on the Bill, and the numerous proposals for amendments may only easily expose any resultant Act passed by this House to easy challenges in courts of law. Conscious of the fact that the House is 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."
}