Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 301214,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/301214/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 290,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Dr. Khalwale",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 170,
        "legal_name": "Bonny Khalwale",
        "slug": "bonny-khalwale"
    },
    "content": "Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, in so doing, the Committee has refused to dissect the issue that is disturbing me, which is: Who changed the list that was agreed upon between the President and the Prime Minister? The idea behind this scheme is to defeat the principle of meritocracy and give people opportunity to serve in Constitutional Offices, whereas their performance during the interview did not measure up. So, I want to ask my dear colleagues in this House that, if we want to be accepted by Kenyans as a House that can rise to meritocracy when we vet applicants, we must reject this Report by the Committee, so that what was applied to the process of appointment of the Chief Justice when there was an apparent disagreement between the two Principals can also be applied to this case. Hon. Members will appreciate that this particular case is going to be easier because the Prime Minister and the President had already agreed on a list of nominees. Therefore, I would like to move that the only way we would have wished to support this Report is if in its recommendation number two, the Committee had insisted that Johnson Kavuludi is the Chairman because he is the person who scored the highest marks during the interview; and if the Committee had gone ahead and adjusted the Membership of the Commission, under item 7.3 of its recommendations, to ensure that one of those people was a lawyer. The Committee had a choice because a lawyer called “Mbai” had already made it to the list of the President. Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, this would be in tandem with the provisions of the law that requires that at least one Member of the Commission should be an advocate. If we do this, we are going to look good. If we do not do it, we will look like we are just pawns on a chase board being played by players, and not men and women who can dissect and interrogate an issue and make a decision based on a scientific method, based on the interview that was done. For that reason, I want to stop talking and appeal to hon. Members that we unanimously reject this Report for the matter to go back to the two Principals, so that the deserving people can make it to the Commission. Thank you."
}