GET /api/v0.1/hansard/entries/248636/?format=api
HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept
{
"id": 248636,
"url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/248636/?format=api",
"text_counter": 149,
"type": "speech",
"speaker_name": "Mr. Sambu",
"speaker_title": "",
"speaker": {
"id": 137,
"legal_name": "Alfred B. Wekesa Sambu",
"slug": "alfred-sambu"
},
"content": "Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, we have two audit committees of Parliament; the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) and the Public Investments Committee (PIC). I hear that the committees have produced many reports based on what the Controller and Auditor- General recommends. I have been a Member of the PIC for two consecutive years. I know that the May 31, 2006 PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES 1043 Committee, which investigates or looks into the recommendations of the Controller and Auditor- General makes recommendations year in, year out and asks the Attorney-General to investigate and prosecute or recover the funds misappropriated by the concerned individuals. Those concerned could be heads of parastatals, among other people. No action has been taken to carry out the recommendations. We have not seen the Attorney-General acting upon the PIC or PAC recommendations. Although it is a Constitutional body, I think it is time the current Attorney- General's Office was discussed here regarding contempt of Parliamentary recommendations. The PAC recommends that the House adopts its recommendations. Once the House has adopted the report of either the PAC or the PIC, then it becomes a resolution of the whole House. If the resolution is that the Attorney-General should investigate and prosecute, then why does he not do anything about it? There are very many reports and, in fact, as the previous contributor to this debate has said, there are two sitting hon. Members whom the two committees have recommended should not hold public offices. However, those hon. Members continue to hold public offices."
}