Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 300279,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/300279/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 414,
    "type": "other",
    "speaker_name": "",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "Assembly to exercise those powers in respect of any matter or question specified in the resolution. From these provisions it is clear that it is open to a Committee, taking all matters into consideration, to invite any persons, including persons whose names are indicated as having been shortlisted, to appear before the Committee. In doing so, a Committee nevertheless, needs to remain alive to the principle of separation of powers and its application to the process of parliamentary approval of nominees for public appointment. It should be broadly understood that the mandate of making nominations for appointments belongs to the Executive, and that it is the role of the Legislature to determine the suitability or otherwise of the nominees and to make appropriate recommendations to the Executive. Accordingly, just as the Executive cannot appoint persons who have not been approved by the House, the House too cannot originate the names of the nominees to be appointed. So long as this is recognized and accepted, a Committee may interview any persons it wishes in order for it to form a view on the suitability of both the persons nominated and the process undertaken by which the nominations were made. The Committee can also, in its report, make recommendations as to the suitability of the person nominated or of other persons all together. Therefore, in so far as a Departmental Committee may invite and speak to any person, and further in so far as the recommendations of the Committee in relation to these latter persons as contained in its report do not bind the Executive, I am not persuaded that I can find unconstitutionality either in the process adopted by the Committee or in its outcome. Hon. Members, the Committee in its report made a number of recommendations for consideration by the House, some of which relate to the matters raised by Mr. Ababu Namwamba in his point of order, and to the subsequent contributions by his colleagues. The Committee made some observations and recommendations on the constitutionality, or otherwise, of the process undertaken by the Executive; as I have ruled before it is not every claim, whether by a Committee or by an individual Member alleging unconstitutionality is so. It may be that the Committee’s view is not shared by the House and that Members of the House are able to urge and persuade a contrary view. Likewise, it may also be the case that when all the Members have read and interrogated the report of the Committee and have made their contributions thereon in debate, the claim of unconstitutionality is abandoned or it becomes apparent that it is unmeritorious. The point, therefore, is that unless the claim of unconstitutionality is apparent on the face of the record and further, unless the processes in the House cannot remedy such unconstitutionality, it may be well to allow the House to ventilate fully on the matter. I will pause again for those at the door to come in."
}