HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept
{
"id": 38431,
"url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/38431/?format=api",
"text_counter": 281,
"type": "speech",
"speaker_name": "Mr. Mbadi",
"speaker_title": "",
"speaker": {
"id": 110,
"legal_name": "John Mbadi Ng'ong'o",
"slug": "john-mbadi"
},
"content": "Madam Temporary Deputy Speaker, I am also happy with the way this Bill has covered the particular areas like what issues the relevant Committee of the House that is going to carry out approval hearings is supposed to look into. Are you going to ask any other question? No! You are supposed to confine yourself to academic qualifications and credentials, professional training and experience of that particular nominee and personal integrity and background. This is in line with Chapter Six of the Constitution. On leadership and integrity, you must demonstrate that your integrity is beyond reproach. You must demonstrate that once put in that office you will not bring shame and ridicule to that particular office. The Committee will now be bound by law to ensure that they carry out due diligence to ensure that the person they approve for appointment meets the minimum threshold of integrity. I think that is one of the reasons that this country has been yearning and craving for the involvement of Parliament in vetting the appointments that are made by the Executive. I urge that in future we come up with laws of vetting those appointments that Ministers make, or in the next dispensation, Cabinet Secretaries. We have been wondering how appointments are made. Sometimes you will find that immediately a Minister assumes office, he makes an appointment that takes ethnic and regional considerations rather than competence and professionalism. This must come to an end. One of us, one of these days, will come up with some legislation along this line to make sure that even those appointments of State corporations, the Chief Executive Officers of parastatals must also somehow go through a vetting procedure. Madam Temporary Deputy Speaker what are some of the issues that this Bill wants the relevant Committee of the House that will do the approval hearing to follow? First, as Mr. Mungatana said, any appointing authority will have to demonstrate the procedure they used to come up with a nominee. What is the procedure? What were the considerations? One will not just wake up and tell the country, “this is the person to occupy this position.” Before Parliament finishes or even starts the vetting process, that appointing authority must tell us the procedure used. Was it an interview? This is because that would be in line with Article 10 which requires public participation, openness and non-discrimination. Kenyans are supposed to be given equal and fair chance to participate in the recruitment process. We will, therefore, be requiring any appointing authority to demonstrate the procedure used to arrive at a particular nominee. We will also require the appointing authority to tell Parliament the statutory requirements relating to the office in question and whether they have been complied with. Have you followed to the letter what the Constitution dictates? The suitability of the candidate for appointment will also have to be looked into. What happens in case the appointing authority has notified the Clerk of the National Assembly of the nomination? Will Parliament just sit and take forever to vet? No! This Bill has addressed that. The Bill is very clear that Parliament will have 14 days to carry out the vetting process. In case Parliament is unable to vet the nominee, then the appointment will be concluded. It will be assumed that already the person has been vetted and approved by Parliament. Madam Temporary Deputy Speaker, the Parliamentary Committees, through this legislation, will be treated like High Courts because they will have powers like those of the High Court. They will also have powers to listen to evidence under oath such that those with mischief must know that in the end if they give misleading information, there is a penalty which is up to a maximum of Kshs200,000 or one year imprisonment or both. This will deter the mischievous individuals who want to tarnish the names of others. I want to conclude by saying that this law is very good. I urge and I am sure that this House will approve this Bill in the Second Reading. However, good as it is, as a country and as the people who will be tasked with the responsibility of vetting various public appointments, we still have an obligation. It will not serve any purpose to listen to the views as presented by Kenyans and then by the end of the day instead of taking them into consideration, especially the views touching on integrity, we rubbish them and condemn the Kenyans who have appeared before us and we call them names. Kenyans will be discouraged and many will not be willing to appear before Committees of the House to make presentations. I, therefore, would urge that in future as we progress and advance and mature in this exercise of vetting which is new to this House--- This House has not been involved a lot in the vetting process. As we carry out this function and especially in the next dispensation in the 11th Parliament when we will have the powers to vet even the appointments made by the President who will be elected then, we should show responsibility and listen to the views presented by Kenyans and consider them as we make recommendations. If we cannot do that, then, as Parliament, we will be failing the people of Kenya. The people of Kenya had faith in their elected representatives. They felt that if their elected representatives are involved in the vetting process, then, indirectly, they are also involved. Therefore, if public opinion points to some direction, this House should not move in the opposite direction. If it does so, then it not only fails this House, but also the people of Kenya. It discourages them and they will ask: “Was it really worth it going through the constitutional review process? Was it really worth it to wait and fight for a new constitutional dispensation for those decades? Was it really worth it for Kenyans to lose their lives? Was it really worth it for Kenyans to suffer; some tortured while others were detained for years so that we could have the kind of environment that we have today? Madam Temporary Deputy Speaker, with those very many remarks, I beg to second."
}