Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1402837,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1402837/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 105,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Rarieda, ODM",
    "speaker_title": "Hon. (Dr) Otiende Amollo",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "Fred Outa, with whom we served in politics and was rejected as a chief administrative secretary (CAS). There are people like Caroline Kamende, who recently ran for President of the Law Society of Kenya (LSK) and was not so lucky. There is Ezra Chiloba, with whom we had a run-in when he was managing politics. There are others like Joash Maangi, with whom we went to Maranda National School. Having said that, the point made by the Chairman is crucial. Diplomatic appointments are very important because they are the face of Kenyans out there. Most times, people do not know who we are. The people we post there reflect who we are. When we reject a person, it is more serious than appointing someone to serve within the country. As a House, we have approved people who have not gone beyond Standard VIII to become cabinet secretaries. Those are, however, our local mistakes. Let us not export our mistakes out there. It is also important that we ensure consultation and ensure that the process is thorough. While I support the Report, I have three concerns in terms of Article 232 of the Constitution. The Report is silent on it. First, Article 232 requires the face of Kenya in all public appointments. This entire Report does not capture ethnic or regional extraction of any of the nominees. It is purposeful to hide the imbalance in the entire list. If you look at the list as it is and add to the earlier list of appointees, you will find a serious ethnic imbalance. I am happy that there appears to be two nominees from where I come from. I only know one. By name, there appears to be two out of 25, which comes to 8 per cent. Going by the tradition of this regime, that is an improvement. It should not be so. It should be much more balanced than that. Secondly, Article 232 requires transparency, competition and merit in all the appointments. In this process, we know that we received the names from the President, but nothing stops the President from opening those positions to competition. The Committee should have captured that so that it can get more meritorious Kenyans, and not just those they will reject. This process should be open to competition. Third is prior consultation. The fact that someone can be nominated and their name brought to this House by the President and then rejected means that there was no prior consultation at all. That is not a good show in a country like ours. That brings me to my last point on the last recommendation, where they are asking us to resolve that all nominees will undergo vetting and that all those who had been posted without vetting should be recalled. We do not need that first part of the resolution. That is the Constitution. The Constitution is clear that proposed appointees will be nominated and their names brought to Parliament. We do not need to repeat what is in the Constitution. On the second recommendation, however, we need to be careful. Our power is to vet those to be appointed. Once you are appointed and take that substantive office, I know of no provision of the Constitution that gives us power to look at you. Their option is to have the President cancel those appointments and then we can appoint others. We do not have power to vet those who have already appointed. I generally support the Report. Thank you, Hon. Speaker."
}