HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept
{
"id": 1417483,
"url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1417483/?format=api",
"text_counter": 653,
"type": "speech",
"speaker_name": "Rarieda, ODM",
"speaker_title": "Hon. (Dr) Otiende Amollo",
"speaker": null,
"content": "issue of the National Security Advisor, the removal of the Public Seal from the Office of the Attorney-General, and agreed on the expansion of the Committee on the Assumption of Office. My divergence is on two issues. The first one is the issue of the Chief Administrative Secretaries while the second one is that of the Head of Public Service. This country’s history is clear, if you look at the Bomas Report and the Exit Report of the Committee of Experts. The people of this country wanted a limited Executive in two respects. One is in terms of powers, and the Constitution has endeavoured to do that. The second one is in terms of numbers. They did two things to cure the issue of numbers. They removed the Office of the Assistant Minister and limited the number of Cabinet Secretaries to between 14 and 22 for a good reason. To introduce the Office of the Chief Administrative Secretary is to introduce the Office of the Assistant Minister by a different baptismal name. Therefore, we are seeking to defeat the will of Kenyans as a House and that is unacceptable. Secondly, it amounts to sabotaging the very desire of Kenyans that they expressed for over 20 years, including in a referendum. If you are reconsidering the structures of Parliament or the Executive, you should not just bring a proposal to this House. You should wait and include it in an amendment to the Constitution so that the people can tell you whether they still want a limited Executive or not. That is not the case here. We are now limiting it by legislation. Hon. Temporary Speaker, there is another problem with the introduction of Chief Administrative Secretaries. If you look carefully at the roles of cabinet secretaries and principal secretaries, there is no new role that is being given to the Chief Administrative Secretary. None at all. None that is not already undertaken by those two offices. We are duplicating roles with the danger of giving some roles by legislation to people who have no constitutional roles. I have a big problem with that. There is nothing new. More importantly, and this is why Kenyans did not want a bloated Government; is that the cost of maintaining the Public Service, be it the Judiciary, the Legislature or the Executive, is far too high. Kenyans would even reduce the size of this House if they had their way. Instead of reducing the number of people in Government, we are working towards increments, and not just an increment of a defined number of 22 people but an increment, as Hon. Murugara has said, of an undefined number that the President can decide at his whim. This comes at a time when the cost of living is high, and on a day that the medical personnel in this country have gone on strike because medical interns cannot be hired. The basic cost of hiring one intern is Ksh42,370. The cost of hiring one Chief Administrative Secretary, going by the last batch, is a basic salary of Ksh800,000 plus benefits, which adds up to Ksh2 million. Hiring one Chief Administrative Secretary is equivalent to hiring 47 medical interns. If we get 50 CASs, as was prescribed last time, we would be talking of 2,350 interns. If we get 100 CASs, as the Committee is recommending, just multiply the number of interns by the same figure. We do not have money to pay interns but we have money to create offices and pay their occupants. I have a big problem with that. Lastly on this point, the creation of this office was declared unconstitutional and remains so. It was not for want of legislation. There are two cases that speak to this issue very clearly. First, there are the Nairobi High Court Constitutional Petitions No.33 and No.42 of 2018, in which Justice Mrima clearly declares in paragraph 310(b) of his judgment that the court declares the Office of the Chief Administrative Secretary unconstitutional. This is not about numbers or legislation. This is on the reading of the Constitution. The other cases are Petitions E080, E084 and E150 of 2023, being considered by three judges – Justice Ong’udi, Justice Kimondo and Justice Visram. In the decision, the majority again declared the Office of the Chief Administrative Secretary unconstitutional in paragraph 301, with one dissent. The dissent is by Justice Ong’udi. She dissents by stating in paragraph 38 of her dissent that she finds that the creation of an additional 27 posts is unconstitutional. On the contrary, the establishment of 23 posts is constitutional. We are going even further than 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"
}