Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1222342,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1222342/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 410,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Gichugu, UDA",
    "speaker_title": "Hon. Gichimu Githinji",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": " Thank you, Hon. Temporary Speaker. My Chairman has ably canvassed virtually all the points the Committee came up with after considering the SRC Draft Regulations. Let me first of all thank the Parliament in which you served that passed the Statutory Instruments Act. I believe you had a hand in this. In your wisdom, you decided that the SRC Regulations must first come in draft form. Had it been like other regulatory-making bodies that publish first and then come to the House for approval, most State officers and public officers in ministries and independent commissions would be suffering because these regulations would be in force. Now that they came in draft form as required by the Statutory Instruments Act, 2013, I just want to add a few points because I do not want to belabour what the Chairperson has said. The SRC is established under Article 230 of the Constitution. In performing its functions under Article 235(5) of the Constitution, one of the things they must consider is transparency and fairness. How transparent was the SRC when they did not involve the constitutional commissions which appeared before them? The constitutional commissions said that they were never consulted hence there was no public participation. They failed the test of transparency in the first place. Additionally, how fair are they when, after several years of service, an employee’s remuneration or benefit is reduced? When the cost of living rises, you find that in some ministries and commissions, salaries and benefits of employees are usually reduced. They failed the test of fairness because there cannot be fairness when someone has served for 10 years, is earning certain benefits or remunerations, and the SRC purports and proposes to reduce those remunerations and benefits. Further, as the Chairperson has ably said, let me also emphasise on the issue of benefits. A benefit is something that someone profits from. However, a reimbursement can never be a benefit. In their definition, they purported to state that a benefit includes reimbursements. It is not a benefit if you have already spent money from your pocket and are supposed to be reimbursed. That includes when you travel outside your station, spend money and are supposed to be reimbursed. They have also included that as a benefit. That is where we found that the definition of the term “benefit” under the Draft Regulations was also eating into the pockets of employees of Government, commissions or State and public officers. They also want you to pay for what you are supposed to be reimbursed. Without going into much detail, on the issue of public participation, after listening to the SRC, the Committee felt that we also need to engage as Parliament. We are supposed to cover our mandate widely to determine whether the SRC has really done its job. On its own motion, the Committee invited all these commissions. It seemed like they were waiting for us to invite them. They had probably also written to the Committee indicating that there was no public participation. Those commissions were ably represented. The Judicial Service 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."
}