Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 227561,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/227561/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 230,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Mr. Muite",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 235,
        "legal_name": "Paul Kibugi Muite",
        "slug": "paul-muite"
    },
    "content": "So, those little cobwebs have got to be removed. The Committee shares that concern. The position in the Constitution is that when the power to vet and approve is vested in this House by law or the Constitution, the role of the President becomes ceremonial and formal. He cannot refuse, any more than he can appoint, a person who has not been vetted and verified by this House. We do not want to continue seeing these debacles. When the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) appoints judges, the role of the President is formal and ceremonial. It is to witness the swearing in. Otherwise, the JSC has no meaning. We might as well allow the Executive to appoint judges and hand-pick them independently. Of what use would be the JSC if it recommends that someone is appointed as a judge and that person is not appointed? Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, these are historical things in England. We borrowed our Constitution from their written Constitution. Their constitution says judges will be appointed on the advice of the Judicial Service Commission. In fact, that is fiction. The reality of the constitutional order in Britain is that the Queen cannot refuse to appoint somebody whose name has been taken by the Judicial Service Commission (JSC). Neither can her Majesty appoint a person whose name has not been taken by JSC as a judge. So, the power to decide who will be a judge is vested constitutionally in the JSC. We do not want to see this embarrassment again. Let us strengthen our constitutional order, so that the respective roles and the balances and checks can be there. We went through these names. We should set out the institutions that do the nominating in the Act. 440 PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES April 5, 2007 Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, in fact, hon. Members may wish to know that the first name that was forwarded to us by FIDA was rejected. We looked through the curriculum vitaes (CVs) and we found that its track record and qualifications did not match the high demand for the very high office of the Kenya Anti-Corruption Advisory Board. We brought our report here. We approved the nominee of the Law Society of Kenya (LSK). The nominee of International Federation of Women Lawyers (FIDA) was rejected by this House. That is why they were requested to go and bring another person who is suitable and that is what they did. Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, so, I really would like to urge hon. Members to vote in favour of adopting this Report. I am aware that some hon. Members are asking why the Act talks about FIDA instead of Maendeleo Ya Wanawake Organisation (MYWO). Perhaps, there is merit in that and it is up to hon. Members, if they so wish, to bring amendments to the law at an appropriate time. They will be able to debate. If they vote for it, at that point in time, they can replace a FIDA representative with a person from MYWO. Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move and ask that hon. Members support the Report of the Departmental Committee on Administration of Justice and Legal Affairs. Thank you."
}