Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1392816,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1392816/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 728,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Seme, ODM",
    "speaker_title": "Hon. (Dr) James Nyikal",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "will come when we get to the Committee of the whole House. We are discussing this Bill, and as it is, I do not support it. One must always look at the philosophy of a Bill. The philosophy of this Bill shows that it is controlled by the Executive. Period! If we have a constitutional arrangement and you see an effort to get things around it, just know that it is always dangerous. The Constitution gives the Executive the authority and the leeway to work, but at the same time, it is a check on the Executive. When you remove those checks, you put the country in danger. Hon. Temporary Speaker, adding the secretary of the National Security Council and a Principal Secretary for Defence to the assumption of office will bring in the element of the military. You do not want to do that when dealing with a purely civil matter. We are always very careful on how we handle military when dealing with civil matters. That definitely cannot be a good thing. It may be okay to add more people to represent the President elect. That is considerable. But I see mischief in bringing in the Principal Secretary for Defence. Why would one say that they want a National Security Council advisor when all the people in this Council are heads of the security organs of the State? What other advice do they need to add in there? At least, the Committee agreed with us on that. There is a provision that if you want technical advice, whether on the use of drones or to develop satellites, you can get those technical people and bring them in. You do not have to bring that into the Constitution. I want to speak on the National Security Committee becoming a committee of the Council, which is actually established by the Constitution. Quite often, those committees just usurp and take over. Again, I am happy that the Committee saw that. It is something that I would not want to see in any Bill at all. It indicates bad thinking and intentions; the desire to control all the time. You are bringing in people who are probably easier to manipulate. The Office of the Attorney-General, the Public Seal, is the utmost symbol and authority of the legal arm of the Government. How can you take it from an office which is constitutionally constituted, and give it to an office that is as at now, administrative? You are intending to make it legal by a statute by removing it from a position it constitutionally held. What are you intending to do? Obviously, the Head of Public Service, as appointed, will answer directly to the Executive. They are obligated and owe their position to that. On the other hand, the Attorney-General is obligated by the Constitution. That is the place where we need it. I am happy you also saw that. Consider the co-ordination of the national Government. You want the position of the Head of the Public Service - which is an administrative position that works very well to coordinate the Public Service - to be established in law. This is something that has been working for years, as indicated in the Report. You want to bring it in through an Act of Parliament. What is the intention? If it is not broken, do not fix it. What is the intention and philosophy behind it? Lastly, the position of the chief administrative secretary originates from the former position of the assistant minister. I worked as a permanent secretary when we had assistant ministers, and there was always a problem. We have the offices of the principal secretary, and the cabinet secretary, and ministries have directors of administration. We always had a problem with finding out what the assistant minister was supposed to do. If we bring them back, what will they do? I can see suggestions here of what they will do. One suggestion was liaison with Parliament. All ministries have technical officers who liaise with Parliament. Were they liaising with the Clerk, the National Assembly or committees? I do not think we need that position. The Bill states that we should liaise with the county governments on matters of concurrent mandate. We have the Intergovernmental Relations Technical Committee (IGRTC) in place. It has fora and people who can actually link the national Government and the county 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"
}