Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1399534,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1399534/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 238,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Sen. Wakili Sigei",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "The specific sub-clause which we are proposing an amendment on is a requirement of the public officer to disclose, in writing, to the reporting authority any offer outside of employment. The Committee proposed to amend the requirement to disclose an offer and instead to disclose acceptance because it does not become an impediment to your judgment before you accept an offer. As such, making reference to an “offer” will be misleading because as long as you have not accepted any offer, it does not in any way impede on your judgment, character and personality. However, the moment you accept, it becomes a conflict on the part of the public officer. Further, the Committee proposes an amendment to Clause 19 on a requirement of the public officers on contracts with public entities, which are prohibited to an officer holding a public office. The Committee proposes that a public officer being referred to as a beneficiary is over legislation. We have proposed that Clause 19 be amended by deleting- “The reference to a public officer being denied to be a beneficiary of.” Therefore, the Clause will only read that- “A public officer should not at any given time, as long as he or she is holding a public office, be a party to any contract that will directly affect the performance of their role as a public officer holding that particular office.” We have equally proposed an amendment to Clause 27 of the Bill, which refers to a former public officer. In this case, if you have been holding a public office, and you have quit, you are required not to do certain things. In this case, provisions of Clause 27 prohibits a public officer from holding a certain office or from performing certain roles of that office. Clause 27 prohibits a former public officer from engaging with that office for two years after exiting the office. In this case, there is a specific reference to the State. The prohibition from dealing with the State is too wide. It covers almost every other aspect of public office that an individual can deal with. The Committee therefore proposes that instead of referring to a State, we refer to an authorized entity. In this case, it is the reporting entity, which has been described in Clause 2, to mean certain State entities or organs with authority to deal with service delivery to the public. The Committee further refers to Clause 29 where there is a specific reference to a prohibition of a public officer from representing an entity that he or she previously worked for two years. There are qualifications to that Clause. It says you can only be allowed to immediately upon termination of your engagement with the public office, after two years, if and when you have sought for exemption and met certain qualifications. You can only do so if and when you have sought for exemption and you have met certain qualifications, one of which includes the fact that you can explain that you are not directly involved in decision-making in the previous entity that you were working for. Secondly, you had no access to important policy information in the reporting entity that was your former employer. Lastly, you are expected to show that you did not possess, or rather you do possess expertise, such that your expertise is required to be utilised in the performance of certain decisions in the entity that is seeking to support"
}