HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept
{
"id": 203799,
"url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/203799/?format=api",
"text_counter": 147,
"type": "speech",
"speaker_name": "Mr. Wako",
"speaker_title": "The Attorney-General",
"speaker": {
"id": 208,
"legal_name": "Sylvester Wakoli Bifwoli",
"slug": "wakoli-bifwoli"
},
"content": " Mr. Temporary Deputy Chairman, Sir, I stand to strongly oppose this proposal for very many reasons, some of which are constitutional and others that relate to the wording of the phraseology itself. Mr. Temporary Deputy Chairman, Sir, under our Constitution, the executive authority which deals with the appointment of all public officers is vested in the President. The core function of Parliament of this National Assembly is to legislate. We should never separate--- We should be very, very clear in our minds, at all times, that the executive authority is vested in the President, and the core function of Parliament of this National Assembly is to legislate - not to appoint. That is the first point that I would like to make. Mr. Temporary Deputy Chairman, Sir, the second point that I would like to make regards the example that has given, that is of Mr. Rotich. It was quite clear that both the Advisory Board and the Committee of this House had not done their functions and duties, which were to recommend somebody who, at the time of recommendation, did not have anything against him. At the time they made the recommendation, investigations were going on before KACC on issues relating to National Cereals and Produce Board (NCPB). Therefore, they ought not to have made the recommendation at that time. The fact that the investigations were going on was within the knowledge of the Advisory Board. Therefore, they ought not to have made the recommendation to Parliament. Parliament ought not to have made the recommendation to the President to appoint. That is the second point that I would like to make. So, they never carried out their duties. So, by the fact that the Advisory Board did not carry out its duty, it should not now turn around and blame the President for having refused to appoint Dr. Rotich. Mr. Temporary Deputy Chairman, Sir, the third point that I would like to make here is: Even in a situation where Parliament is exercising its core function to legislate, the Constitution does provide that the President can refuse to give consent to the Bill. The same Constitution also provides the procedures which must be followed. In other words, when he refuses, it comes back to the House, so that the House can have the benefit of the President's wisdom, and make a decision accordingly. It is only last week that this august Assembly - the National Assembly - saw the benefit of the President's wisdom on the issue of the Media Bill, and agreed with the President, although two weeks before, they had passed the legislation. Mr. Temporary Deputy Chairman, Sir, the phraseology that we have now does not give this House any opportunity to benefit from the wisdom of the President. All it says is that, as soon as the name goes there, within fourteen days, whether or not the President has assented, the person will be deemed to have been appointed. It does not give an opportunity for this House to find out the following: Why has the President refused to give assent? That way, they can benefit from his wisdom. The history of this House - and not just the Media Bill - has been that anything that has been referred back to this House by the President in terms of the Bill, this House has always agreed with it. It has benefitted from that wisdom. We need to have a phraseology here under which this House can benefit from that wisdom. Mr. Temporary Deputy Chairman, Sir, on those three grounds, I totally and strongly oppose this proposed amendment."
}