HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept
{
"id": 291344,
"url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/291344/?format=api",
"text_counter": 382,
"type": "speech",
"speaker_name": "Mr. Baiya",
"speaker_title": "",
"speaker": {
"id": 8,
"legal_name": "Peter Njoroge Baiya",
"slug": "peter-baiya"
},
"content": "Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, there is also the Truth, Justice and Reconciliation Commission Act, which is sought to be amended. The import of the amendment is that it is sought to reduce the period of winding up of the TJRC from three months to 45 days. I am aware that other Members have contributed and said that this period should be reduced further to 30 days. However, it has not, again, been explained why it has become necessary to reduce this period. In the initial design of the TJRC we clearly specified, or gave the Commission, three months within which to conclude its work. This Commission has done a tremendous job under difficult circumstances. We know that it has even encountered differences among the Commissioners, and somehow as they come to conclusion they have found a way to reconcile themselves. The purpose of this concluding part is not simply to write a report as if they were just compiling information and the final thing is simply to write down a report. It should be understood that the Commission is expected not only to compile a report but also come up with a reconciliation programme. It must make practical recommendations and recommend activities that will lead to actual reconciliation between communities. Its work in the preceding period before the report consisted also of designing methods and strategies for reconciliation. These three months will be utilized to ensure that they do a good job. To ask them to wind up within a limited period, which has been scaled down from what was initially three months, is unreasonable and it is like an attempt to invite this Commission to do a shoddy job after it has utilized substantial public resources. There is no justification for this. We would urge the House not to effect the amendment and let the statutory period of three months remain. With regard to the National Cohesion and Integration Commission (NCIC) Act the amendment proposed seeks to give power of reappointment of the existing Commission. Once more, we have no explanation as to why this amendment is sought to be made. This amendment is once more an illustration of the old ways of doing things. Why do we want to reappoint the existing commissioners contrary to the spirit of the new Constitution; not even the spirit but the provisions of the current Constitution. Section 232 of the current Constitution requires that every constitutional commission and by extension any other Government commission, must conduct its recruitment or replacement competitively, openly, transparently but not to appoint or reappoint people just because they happen to be in office. The process of reappointment is also a process of re-evaluating the performance of those who have been in office and the window should not be closed because, it may be that they are replaced based on their performance. If this applies to all other State commissions, the more reason it should apply to the National Cohesion and Integration Commission (NCIC). It is also important that this process incorporates the spirit of ensuring that these replacements are done timely and not to delay the process of reappointment and wait until when you want to be allowed to make reappointments at the last minute. Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, with regard to the Vetting of Judges and Magistrates Act, the amendment proposes to delete Section 23(2). This Section sets timelines within which the process of vetting of judges and magistrates was to go on. Under the current Section, the period is one year. We are quite aware that the process of vetting judges and magistrates only started about two or three months ago after the process underwent certain challenges. It was challenged in court by people who felt that it ought not to have taken place. Having started for a period of two or three months, we are aware that they have now run out of time and it is imperative that their time be expanded. But, to seek to actually eliminate the timelines all together, we find it objectionable. We do not want to make this vetting an unlimited process. It would be counter-productive to the effective reform of the Judiciary. We want to amend the timelines to ensure that the process of vetting judges and magistrates is done expeditiously so that the Judiciary has time to make use of the new vetted officers to discharge their mandate. However, if this process is prolonged indefinitely, it will have the impact of allowing a painful process to beset the institution of the Judiciary and expose it to prolonged uncertainty, and this should not be encouraged. We are, therefore, proposing that the Minister should consider dropping this proposed amendment. Instead, what is anticipated under the Act is that he should bring a Motion seeking for extension of time within which the Vetting of Judges and Magistrates Commission can complete its process. They can seek six months or, on the maximum, one year. If this Motion is brought, I am sure the Departmental Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs will gladly consider supporting it but to remove the timelines all together is completely unnecessary and against public interest. Indeed, it was anticipated that the way they would proceed, especially to vetting of junior cadre of Judicial officers is that they would set themselves into separate panels and not doing the vetting as one Commission. Those were the considerations that led to the constituting of a commission of nine members and if they divide themselves into three or so panels, they will expedite the process and ensure that our Judiciary has well vetted judicial officers who meet the new constitutional criteria which require that they all undergo vetting before they can serve in the Judiciary. The other amendment which I wish to talk about relates to the Elections Act with regard to the requirement for elections. There is an amendment here which seeks to change the eligibility for the documents that are required to be produced by a person before he/she can vote. It is now becoming very apparent that the use of the voter’s card as a requirement for voting in addition to a national identity card, the driving licence or any other document issued by the Government such as the passport is not adding any value. It is, therefore, imperative that we consider deleting all together from voter requirement the production of a voter’s card. This would make the process easier. Perhaps it will also reduce the budget of the IEBC which is becoming a big issue. We will, therefore, ask the Minister to redesign or review this proposed amendment to delete the use of the voter’s card all together rather than to require that it be one of the requirements. If a voter is to be identified by a voter’s card, in addition to a driving licence or passport, they ought to be adequate. Voter registration in that respect would simply become a process of confirming that as a voter you have been registered, you have an identity card and during the voting day those are the same documents you produce. It would make the voting process faster especially now that the voters will be under an obligation to vote at once to elect so many office holders; from the President, Members of Parliament, the Senators and so forth. Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would also wish to comment about the proposed amendments with regard to the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC). The amendment proposed by the Minister seeks to make one of the conditions of operation of the Commission; that it will have the headquarters of the Commission being in the Capital City and in addition, that the Commission ensures access to its services in other parts of the Republic. This provision is once again illustrative of an attempt to make our laws poorer than they have been. The Section as it was before only required the Commission to ensure that its services are accessed by all Kenyans in all parts of the country but here comes an amendment that purports to put a legislation that the headquarters of the Commission must be in Nairobi. I find no relevance for that requirement in law and one can foresee a situation where for one reason or another, the Commission may need to actually sit outside of Nairobi maybe in circumstances of disturbances or whatever nature. If you insist that its headquarters is in Nairobi, you are telling us that if they sit in another place like Mombasa, Nakuru or Kisumu, their decisions would be liable to challenge or possibly be annulled because they were not done from the City of Nairobi. That is not a reasonable requirement and we, therefore, ask the Minister to allow the section to remain the way it was before and not to incorporate it within our law because it does not make sense. There are other amendments that we would wish to speak to specifically. I wish to stop there and seek to support, subject to those amendments that we have proposed being incorporated."
}