Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1461769,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1461769/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 213,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Kikuyu, UDA",
    "speaker_title": "Hon. Kimani Ichung’wah",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "not stipulate any particular academic qualifications. However, even those who Kenyans had an interesting engagement with... For example, Hon. Ali Hassan Joho, in a very good manner, exhibited to the country how he was inspired by Prof. Ali Mazrui to pursue education, having not performed well at KCSE or at high school level. I commend not only Prof. Ali Mazrui, but also the latter day Mazrui in Ali Hassan Joho who has become a great inspiration to many Kenyans. Not every other Kenyan who sits for examinations at the KCSE level or at O levels qualifies to join an institution of higher learning. However, right from the example given by Prof. Ali Mazrui to Ali Hassan Joho of today, he has exhibited to our young people that a good proportion and a good percentage of our own constituents sit for KCSE and do not qualify to join university. That does not mark the end of your life. Not qualifying to join the university after Form IV should not mark an end to your pursuit to better yourself and for academic excellence. Hon. Ali Hassan Joho exhibited to the Committee that he is now pursuing a Master's Degree at Harvard University in the Kennedy School of Administration, which is a commendable thing. I commend Hon. Ali Hassan Joho for not just being nominated, but also for exhibiting to Kenyans that he can also serve as an inspiration to younger Kenyans who should now know that you can get on a path for academic excellence even after having not performed so well at KCPE. Besides considering their CVs, the Committee also invited the public to submit memoranda by way of written statements on oath or affidavits as stipulated in our Constitution and our laws in the Public Appointments Act on the suitability of each of the nominees. To this end, the Committee received a total of 837 memoranda. I thank the many Kenyans who submitted that huge number of memoranda; which tells you that, indeed, public participation was not superfluous or an exercise for the sake of it. One hundred and twenty-three (123) of those were hand-delivered and 714 were submitted by email. Section 69 of the Public Appointments Parliamentary Approval Act provides that any person may, prior to the approval hearing, by written statement on oath, provide the Clerk with evidence. It is important for Hon. Members and members of the public to note that it must be a written statement on oath or an affidavit and provide evidence contesting the suitability of a candidate to hold the office to which the candidate has been nominated. Out of the memoranda submitted, 181 complied with Section 6, subsection 9 of the Act, while 656 were not in the form of affidavits and hence did not meet the requisite threshold as per the law. Again, out of the 656, some were actually in support of the nominees and, therefore, inadmissible because in law, Section 6, subsection 9 expects you to submit a written memorandum in written form and in the form of an affidavit, being evidence contesting the suitability and not supporting the suitability. There are many Kenyans who wrote stating that they supported the appointment or they thought certain nominees were suitable to hold office. A detailed analysis of the memoranda is contained in Chapter 3 of the Report and Members can peruse to see that for themselves. It is also noteworthy that the affidavits were largely on the following issues: 1. The dismissal from Cabinet by the President vide Gazette Notice 8440 of 2024. 2. Allegations of corruption and abuse of power. 3. That the President, by appointing persons from the Minority Party, should not have been allowed and there were memoranda that were submitted on that basis. 4. The list of nominees did not comply with the two-thirds gender rule or gender principle. 5. The list of nominees did not reflect representation from special interest groups. 6. Integrity issues and alleged violation of Chapter 6 of the Constitution. 7. Alleged violation of Articles 103, (1) (e) and 194, 1 (e) of the Constitution. It is notable that all these issues, as Hon. Members and the public will be able to see from the Report, were exhaustively addressed by the Committee. There is not a single issue of 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."
}