HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept
{
"id": 1459056,
"url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1459056/?format=api",
"text_counter": 30,
"type": "other",
"speaker_name": "",
"speaker_title": "",
"speaker": null,
"content": "first time that the committee was making available its findings to the Senate, and in so doing, making the report available for public information and scrutiny. Following the tabling of the Standing Committee report, the Chairperson, as is a standard procedure on such undertaking, gave Notice of Motion pursuant to Standing Order No.60 of the Senate, during the morning sitting of Wednesday, 24th July, 2024. In the Notice of Motion, the Standing Committee recommended two candidates for consideration for nomination to the position of members of the SRC pursuant to Article 232 (b) (7) of the Constitution and Section 7(2) of the SRC Act. Hon. Senators, appreciating the timelines given for submission of the names of the two nominees from the Senate, the substantive Motion for consideration of the committee report was scheduled in the Order Paper for the afternoon sitting of Wednesday, 24th July, 2024. It was at this point that Sen. (Dr.) Boni Khalwale, MP raised the point of order highlighted above. The point of order was a legitimate concern as it brought to light two letters from the same institution that gave contradicting information to the Senate. I, therefore, find the point of order merits consideration as the information contained in the correspondence from the UoN would in either case, positively or negatively, impact the nomination of the candidates. Hon. Senators, the matter which required the Speaker's intervention arising from the point of order by Sen. (Dr.) Khalwale, MP was twofold - (i) Admissibility of the letter received on 24th July, 2024; and, (ii) If the answer to (i) is in the affirmative, the procedure to be followed in examining the letter in the context of the Motion already before the Senate and the evidence adduced for the committee to arrive at the recommendations made. To address the first concern, I have previously ruled that in undertaking an assessment of documents tabled in the Senate as evidence, one must be satisfied that the evidence tabled is from a source, which by parliamentary practices is official and verifiable. After reviewing the letter received on 24th July, 2024, I established the following - (a) The letter reference UON/AA/ CEC/1/ 2022 /1 is dated 22nd July, 2024 and that the letter is ostensibly signed by an individual by the name Mr. Emmanuel Mumba for the Registrar of Academics and that the letter is on the letterhead of the Deputy Vice Chancellor Academic Affairs of the UoN. In this respect, I find that the letter meets the admissibility criteria mentioned above. The next question that required my determination was the procedure to be followed in addressing the letter in the context of the Motion already before the Senate. This process requires authentication. This is an undertaking that the Speaker in the present context is ill-equipped to perform. From my perspective, the organ of the Senate that has an intricate understanding of the matter at hand is the organ that undertook the interview process. It is for this and other reasons that the Constitution and Article 124 (1) gave power to either House of Parliament to establish Committees. Select committees, as agents of the Senate, are tasked with functions that would otherwise be cumbersome or difficult for the entire Senate, sitting in plenary to perform. The electronic version of the Senate Hansard Report is for information purposes only.A certified version of this Report can be obtained from the Director, Hansard and Audio Services,Senate."
}