HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept
{
"id": 254401,
"url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/254401/?format=api",
"text_counter": 237,
"type": "speech",
"speaker_name": "Mr. Speaker",
"speaker_title": "",
"speaker": null,
"content": "Order! I expect Members on the Opposition side to, at least, learn to listen. The word \"general\" is in the body of the Constitution, and your protestation notwithstanding, it will remain there! Proceed, Mr. M. Kariuki! Mr. Speaker, Sir, we have had a very orderly afternoon. I pray that we continue with that particular mood; trying to reason and engaging each other. The clear statement contained in the Constitution is \"general direction and control.\" Those are issues of policy. Minsters do not micro-manage Ministries. The other observation I wish to make on the responsibilities of Ministers is that there is nowhere in the Constitution where the Minister for Finance is referred to as \"an executive Minister\". In this Report, the Committee says: \"The Minister for Finance is not an ordinary Minister.\" Section 22(3) of the Constitution covers all Ministers, regardless of whether you are the Minister for Finance or a Minister of State. We would be over-stretching the meaning of the statement in the Constitution, to say that the Minister for Finance is a special Minister with special executive authority. If that was the intention of the Constitution, it would have created that particular exemption. However, that exemption is not in the Constitution. Mr. Speaker, Sir, the Constitution gives Permanent Secretaries (PSs) the responsibility of being the Chief Executives of the Ministries. There are certain things that the Minister cannot do. Ministers cannot micro-manage Ministries. The day to day running of Ministries is left in the hands of PSs. That is important because, 396 PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES April 5, 2006 if we agree that, that is the premise upon which conclusions should be drawn, then what follows on page 43 of the Report raises some issues of concern to me; as to whether the Committee should have gone ahead to reach a verdict. Mr. Speaker, Sir, on page 43, as part of its recommendations, the Committee says: \"We are very weary of making conclusions before the investigations are made.\" It could have been quite appropriate if the Committee said: \"We think there are matters for investigation. Can we stick to our recommendation?\" Mr. Speaker, Sir, for the Committee to go ahead and condemn some people and make its own conclusion on a matter it subsequently says should actually go for further investigation, in my view, is not fair. Mr. Speaker, Sir, if you look on the same page 43 of the Report which is, again, the Committee's recommendations on His Excellency the Vice-President and Minister for Home Affairs, you will realise that this is also a subject of another adverse conclusion. Mr. Speaker, Sir, on paragraph five, under the heading \"Vice-President and Minister for Home Affairs\", the Report refers to a Ministerial Statement made before this House by His Excellency the Vice-President and Minister for Home Affairs and the subsequent findings by the Committee that, that particular Ministerial Statement may not have been accurate. Mr. Speaker, Sir, I wish to draw the attention of the House to the provisions of Section 4 of the National Assembly, Powers and Privileges Act, which guarantees absolute immunity to the freedom of expression for any statements spoken or words uttered in a statement, Motion or debate before this House. It cannot become subject of civil or criminal investigation. That is absolutely clear. So, this particular recommendation on paragraph five of page 43 flies in the face of that particular section. Mr. Speaker, Sir, these are only some of the concerns I am expressing, but I am not in disagreement with the general recommendation."
}