Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 322919,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/322919/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 674,
    "type": "other",
    "speaker_name": "",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "What this amendment is doing is not amending that: It is saying that we basically say that we abolish the traffic department as we know it, and then move to the second level which is to say in each police division, the OCPD shall be responsible for traffic matters within the division. So, I have two problems with this. One, having agreed in principle that the traffic department is already established and does some work and will be reorganized within the police reforms. The second level where we are now going and say let us abolish it and say who will be responsible for traffic matters in each division, we are now attempting to reform the police through the Traffic Act which is a constitutional responsibility that we are giving to the National Police Service Commission (NPSC). I believe Kenyans said that we give police matters to an independent Police Service Commission through the Constitution. It was for them to reform themselves. So, for us to come here in the House and then tell them that this is how they will do their things, we will be actually interfering with the constitutional mandate that we gave them. That is where my worry is. On the one hand we want to reform the police, but on the other hand we want to do it ourselves. If there is a problem in terms of the OCPD whom we now give the responsibilities, who do we hold responsible? Is it the Inspector- General, the National Police Service or ourselves for having said that this is the person to do it? I can see the spirit and agree totally with the argument."
}