HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept
{
"id": 195892,
"url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/195892/?format=api",
"text_counter": 90,
"type": "speech",
"speaker_name": "Mr. Namwamba",
"speaker_title": "",
"speaker": {
"id": 108,
"legal_name": "Ababu Tawfiq Pius Namwamba",
"slug": "ababu-namwamba"
},
"content": "Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, let me first of all congratulate hon. Oparanya on his appointment as a Minister. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, in supporting this Motion, I wish to express the following sentiments. I think we are establishing a very admirable tradition in this House. The tradition of vetting appointments to public institutions. However, I would like to urge this House that this process should not become superficial. This is a case where hon. Members only come to look at names on lists and rubber stamp the same. I only found out a short while ago that the names and curricula vitae of these appointees had been tabled with the Clerk. However, I believe that many Members of Parliament here have no knowledge of the same. Neither did they have access to the details of the persons appointed. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, while supporting this culture, I would want to propose that we institutionalise this tradition of vetting, which would require us to put in place certain frameworks, including a formal committee of this House that would be charged with the responsibility of scrutinising nominees to public office ahead of a debate of this nature. That will ensure that the kind of hiccup that we experienced this afternoon of one name having to be removed, while debate is imminent would be avoided. I would want to urge the Government to start thinking of the possibility of legislation that would anchor such a framework in this House. In the absence of, I think it would remain a challenge to the Members to ensure that we anchor that process. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, the other issue is the question of transitioning. Of course, we know that the 2007 Election was the first transition in the life of the CDF. The Act came into being in 2003. This is the first time we have new Members of Parliament taking over the process from their predecessors. We have experienced many hiccups because the process of transitioning from one Member to another seems not have been very clearly thought. I want to tie this to the question of audit and monitoring of CDF projects. I would urge the Minister, as he thinks of the various reforms that should be contemplated to streamline this process further, to have a process that can prepare some kind of composite monitoring and audit reports in the penultimate year of the life of every House in the fourth year of the life of every House in the contemplation that there would be a transition. That would assist in ensuring that new Members of Parliament would have an easy time inheriting the CDF projects and processes. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, on the question of the audit, it is gratifying to listen to the Minister assure this House that the question of audit is going to be taken very seriously. He April 24, 2008 PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES 687 mentioned the possibility of having district audit teams in the various districts. My only hope is that these audits is not focused on the future but it should also act retrospectively. I want to say, especially in light of the House CDF Committee, that there seems to have been a tendency of Members of Parliament being reluctant to come out strongly against their fellow Members whenever they noticed any irregularity. If we are going to ensure audits serve the purpose for which they are intended; that is, to secure the public good and ensure that expenditure through CDF is above board, we need to be serious and take action, whenever we notice irregularities. Some of us have inherited CDF projects in our constituencies and realised lots of irregularities and yet, we are told that audits were conducted every year. The question is: How did these irregularities sip through the audit process? I would want to urge the hon. Minister to take the question of audit very seriously. As we think about reforms and streamlining the CDF, the question of flexibility is also crucial. I think bureaucracy has sipped through the CDF process. Until we realise that one of the objective behind the CDF was to ease and relax the process of development. So, we must find ways to ensure that the same bureaucracy that has encumbered development through mainstream Government departments does not encumber CDF projects. Otherwise, I look forward to contributing to a process that would lead to the CDF achieving its optimum effect. Lastly, looking at the list of institutions that are mandated under the amended statute to appoint members to the Board, I realise that the Law Society of Kenya was not represented. I do not know whether that was by design or by default. I think it might be important to consider having a nominee of the Law Society of Kenya given the myriad legal implications and issues arising with regard to the CDF. With those few remarks, I support the Motion."
}