Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 166402,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/166402/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 193,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Mr. Imanyara",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 22,
        "legal_name": "Gitobu Imanyara",
        "slug": "gitobu-imanyara"
    },
    "content": "We, in this House, must seriously consider whether we can depart from an opinion expressed by the experts that we, ourselves, have established to guide us in the process of implementation. Upon what basis did the Minister feel that he can disregard the opinion of the CIC, when it is so well set out and the reasons for recommending the removal of that clause? Unfortunately, listening to the Minister yesterday, and with due respect, I never heard him give any concrete or persuasive reason as to why this clause has been retained. I shall be asking that it be removed during the Committee Stage. To the extent that this Bill relates to the sensitive issue of vetting members of the Judiciary, this proposal offends the spirit of the Constitution and compromises some of the national values and leadership principles set out in the Constitution. The Minister for Lands, while seconding this Motion just a few minutes ago, warned about the dangers of starting on the wrong foot. We have already seen far too many signs. The Minister has been at pains to point out that we are lagging behind because we are not living to the spirit of the Constitution. I am, therefore, surprised that he would append his signature to a section of law that negates the principle that is enshrined in the Constitution that requires the people’s participation in the process of nomination to the Board. It is, therefore, my considered opinion that the Minister reconsiders his decision and introduces this amendment to retain the clauses as we recommended by the CIC. The CIC then says that:- “Secondly, we wish to bring to your attention Clause 12(5) and (6) of the Bill which omits the requirement for consultation with the Prime Minister during the process of filling a vacancy in the Vetting Board. Considering that the consultative process is provided for in all other appointment processes in the Bill and is in any event required by the Constitution in Section 29 of the Schedule, we propose that this section be amended by including the requirement for consultation with the Prime Minister”. Madam Temporary Deputy Speaker, I echo those objections by the CIC. In addition to that, I also have concerns about the actual composition. If you look at Clause 9(5) on the PSC, first of all, I am not certain that the PSC ought to be entrusted with this responsibility given that the PSC in place is the same PSC that has been carried over from the past. The people who constitute the Board are as follows:- (i) The Cabinet Office. (ii) The Office of the Prime Minister. (iii) The Ministry for the time being responsible for matters relating to the Judiciary. (iv) The Office of the Attorney-General. (v) The Ministry for the time being responsible for matters relating to the Public Service. (vi) The Public Service Commission. (vii) The Judicial Service Commission. (viii) The Law Society of Kenya."
}