Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1406273,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1406273/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 199,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Suba South, ODM",
    "speaker_title": "Hon. Caroli Omondi",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "The suggested selection panel has 12 members. How they will make a decision by voting or whatever process is unknown to me. Normally, decision making is reserved to an even number of members of an organ. We should have five, seven, nine or 11 members. However, we have 12 members here. Eight of them are from political parties. How is that inclusive and representative? Only four are non-political. There are two persons who will be appointed by the Parliamentary Service Commission, which is a political organ. Three persons will be nominated by the Political Parties Liaison Committee, which is a political organ. One person will be nominated by a political party other than a parliamentary party, which is another political organ. One person will be nominated by a parliamentary party or a coalition of parties forming the national government, which is another political organ. One person will be nominated from a political party or coalition which will not form the national government, which is again politics. There is no room for competent, independent and experienced people to oversee the process. This will create more problems. We are deleting certain phrases in the proposed definition of chairperson. The Bill says that the chairperson shall be the person appointed in accordance with Article 252 of the Constitution. We are deleting the vice-chairperson or a member appointed by the members on a temporary basis to exercise the office of chairperson. That is a very serious problem. It simply means that if there is no chairperson who meets the qualifications of a Judge of the Supreme Court, then the Commission cannot function. There will be no chairperson. The decision of the Supreme Court was whoever exercises, in tempuras, the functions and duties of chairperson should have the qualifications of a judge. So, we should have re-drafted it in a different way and said that the chairperson shall retain the qualifications of a Supreme Court Judge. This should be the vice-chairperson or any other member. In other words, both the vice-chair and the chairperson should, at all times, have the qualifications of a Supreme Court Judge, so that the Commission is not stranded. 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"
}