Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 40222,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/40222/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 424,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Mr. Abdikadir",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 1,
        "legal_name": "Abdikadir Hussein Mohamed",
        "slug": "abdikadir-mohammed"
    },
    "content": "were outside the CKRC. He also said that he had claimed unlawful funding when he had not done the work. In his opinion, this gentleman was unfit to hold this post. On this matter, we had several witnesses. One was another Commissioner of the CKRC, Commissioner Adagala who termed Prof. Ghai’s views on Tobiko as hate speech. Her view was that the Commission had been divided right in the middle on political issues and that what Prof. Ghai was seeing was because he was on the other side of the political divide as far as the CKRC were concerned and the views were not correct. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, we also talked to the current Director of KACC who was at that time the Chief Executive of the CKRC. We talked to him on the issue of the funding. Prof. P.L.O. Lumumba was very clear that you could hold anything else against the nominee but on matters of financial propriety he was completely above board. That is the direct evidence of the current Director of KACC. He also informed us that all the Commissioners except Prof. Ghai and one other Commissioner were of the view that their reading of the law allowed them to take transport allowances even when they were provided motor vehicles by the Commission and that when he came on board as the Director, he sought clarification from the Treasury. The Treasury gave him confirmation that indeed his reading of the law was correct; that if the CKRC was providing motor vehicles, the Commissioners should not also be taking transport allowances. He then asked all these Commissioners to cease taking allowances on transport and more to refund. All of them did refund, including Mr. Tobiko. He said that at no time had Mr. Tobiko taken financial payment for work he had not done. He said that he was one of the few people who if he was paid when he was not in a meeting, he would return the funds because he had been paid wrongly. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, on the issue of past experience, the Committee was very strong that this gentleman and the Attorney-General and that department had nothing to write home about in terms of work product. The Committee was very clear that as far as we were concerned, quite a number of Committee Members felt that the very fact that the Attorney-General had come to support the current nominee, was negative in terms of the nominee’s chances with the Committee. With all due respect, the Attorney-General has no achievement to write home about. That is my person view. The Committee was also of the view that, that gentleman was going to be operating in a new constitutional dispensation. That gentleman was not the Director of Public Prosecutions, indeed. Throughout that process, the Director of Public Prosecutions was the Attorney-General. Indeed, this came out in a very interesting way when one of the witnesses, a former Chief of Public Prosecutions, who had claimed that he had done everything that Mr. Tobiko was talking about. He was asked: “How come then he had entered a nolle prosequi in a particular case?” He said: “No! No! You do not understand. That was the decision of the Attorney-General who is the final authority on these matters.” So, if it is failure of leadership, there are those in the Committee who felt that, that really should be hanged around the neck of the Attorney-General, hon. Amos Wako, and not the nominee himself."
}