Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 166400,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/166400/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 191,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Mr. Imanyara",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 22,
        "legal_name": "Gitobu Imanyara",
        "slug": "gitobu-imanyara"
    },
    "content": "Madam Temporary Deputy Speaker, I rise to express my support for the principle of the Vetting of Judges and Magistrates Bill with very serious reservations. Both the Minister who introduced the Bill and the Minister who has seconded it have spoken at length about the need for this. I need not repeat what they have said. However, in looking at this Bill, we must, at the same time, also appreciate that we have already established institutions to guide the other institutions and the Government on the process of the implementation of the Constitution. In particular, we established the Commission on the Implementation of the Constitution (CIC), specifically with this role and mandate in mind. Yesterday when the Minister was moving this Motion, he made full disclosure to his credit, and I commend him for that, pointing out that the CIC had taken objection to the manner in which this Bill has retained some of the provisions that they recommended be excluded. Although he tabled that letter, he did not explain to the House the objections that the CIC had. With your permission, I just want to go through part of that document, being the advisory opinion of the CIC that was sent to this House through the Office of the Speaker, copied to the Minister and which the Minister tabled before this House yesterday. Upon examining the Bill which we are now debating, they said the following:- “Upon reflection on the matter and pursuant to discussions with the Attorney- General, the Minister for Justice, National Cohesion and Constitutional Affairs and the Law Reform Commission, it was agreed that the Bills needed to be withdrawn from the Floor of the House. Such withdrawal was necessary considering that the Bills had been tabled before the House prior to the setting up of the CIC. It was agreed that the consultations between the CIC, the Attorney-General and the Kenya Law Reform Commission contemplated by Section 26(1)(4), which provides as follows:- “For the purposes of Clause 1, the Attorney-General, in consultation with the Commission on the Implementation of this Constitution, shall prepare the relevant Bills for tabling before Parliament as soon as reasonably practicable to enable Parliament to enact the legislation within the period mentioned”. The Minister indicated, and I have no doubt at all, that the Attorney-General had approved the tabling of this Bill and that it had his concurrence. I have no problem with the fact that the Bill was introduced to the House by the Minister rather than the Attorney-General, but they then go on to say that:- “The said Bill has now been published. Whereas we note that most of the issues that we raised in relation to this Bill have been incorporated in the published Bill, we however, note that two issues remain outstanding”."
}