Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 362479,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/362479/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 287,
    "type": "other",
    "speaker_name": "",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "particular hon. Members were concerned that there was video in which she disqualified evidence by a particular suspect. She informed the Committee that that video was not brought to her attention, because it was a video that had been submitted to the magistrate at a lower court. However, hon. Members felt that the video should have been called for by the superior court. We were not totally satisfied with the explanation; based on our discretion in coming up with this report, the Committee did not want to interrogate the particular details, because we did not want to carry out an inquiry as a Committee. The other matter that was of concern was the commission of inquiry into the circumstances that led to the helicopter crash that killed the former Minister of State for Provincial Administration and Internal Security, Prof. Saitoti and his Assistant Minister, Hon. Ojode. About the issues surrounding this inquiry, hon. Members were very concerned. Is it possible that this particular nominee is a gatekeeper for the Executive? She responded in the negative, and denied the fact. She said that she had conducted herself in the best interests of the public. The other key issue that the nominee was vetted on was the question of her administrative skills, management and good governance. The Committee, as required under Standing Order No.216, investigated and enquired into the nominee’s competence, particularly because she is going to be the Deputy Chief Justice (DCJ), which is a position of leadership. It is not that she is going to be just a mere DCJ, but she is supposed to provide leadership to the Judiciary. We were concerned about public matters to this country. One of the questions that were put to her was on the question of our remuneration as protected by the Constitution. The Committee told her as she is aware this matter had exercised the minds of Kenyans; we asked her whether she was ready to take a pay cut and she said that she was willing to take a pay cut with one condition, that the money that would be deducted as her pay cut should go to charities. We thought that was a good answer with respect to what was happening to this House. I thought if there was a pay cut that we must take, it should also go to charities; it must not remain with the Exchequer. Hon. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, I will be very brief with respect to the observations that the Committee made. They are as follows. This particular nominee has only three years to her retirement. One of the questions that we asked her was what value she would add to this position of the DCJ. She said that she brings experience, that she is an insider while the Chief Justice came from outside. So they will blend well and make sure that the Judiciary gets the best value out of the two of them. We found that her answers were fairly straight. In fact, even in instances where she was in error of judgment, or where she issued a judgment based on the time of arrest instead of time of judgment, she admitted that she was honestly wrong and we found her to be honest in the sense that she did not defend that error in judgment. Finally, the Committee found that she was suitable and qualified for appointment as the DCJ of the Republic of Kenya. The Committee made the following recommendations. Pursuant to Article 166(1)(a) of the Constitution and Standing Order No.199, the Committee recommends that:-"
}