Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 427390,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/427390/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 103,
    "type": "other",
    "speaker_name": "",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "Mr. Speaker, Sir, I was quite impressed by the preparedness of the counties that came to Nanyuki to present their appeals. In the first instance, I want to commend the Governor of Kirinyaga County with a senior member of his cabinet. He was very well prepared. He was able to articulate the case for Kirinyaga County very clearly. As you see from the schedule, he is the first in the schedule. You find that we agree that the issues that he had brought were to be allowed. I must also say that in our case we allowed, where the members of the county executive came, like in the case of Marsabit, Isiolo and Laikipia counties. We allowed them and listened to them because they told us that they were duly authorized by the county government. The preparedness with which these people came, particularly the young executives from Marsabit; the way they articulated their case on the issues of water, livestock, roads, agriculture and all those other issues, I must say I was very impressed. I got the impression that those counties take their work seriously. When the work we are supposed to be doing is taken seriously coupled with the oversight role that we, as the Senate, are endeavouring to articulate as best as we can, devolution is going to succeed. Mr. Speaker, Sir, I also listened very carefully to my colleagues who contributed yesterday. I listened to Sen. Kajwang in his very well thought out debate. I also listened to Sen. Wako when he was seconding, who said that, in his opinion, the appeals, as one would say in law, have been allowed by the Senate. But the question is: Which appeals have been allowed? When I was practicing law, you had to make an appeal for it to be allowed. A court cannot sit and assume that you want to be released from prison or that you are not satisfied with the decision of a lower court and that, therefore, you have filed an appeal. That is why I want to underscore or underline the debate or contribution by Sen. Kajwang. The whole Senate went throughout the counties to listen to appeals. True, they may have been generic. They may have come out almost in one format as if it was from one template. However, it is also true that the counties that took them seriously sent their Governors or senior officers to come and argue their appeals before us. It is based on that process that we filed our reports. You will find that in the case where the counties were not represented, there is no return or finding. There is, therefore, no recommendation on those counties. If our oversight role and our right to listen to appeals is to be taken seriously, then one must beg the question why would we allow appeals that were not before us? Why is the transfer to be symmetrical and not asymmetrical? We do not know why they did not appeal. Maybe they do not feel confident to undertake the roles that were appealed. Maybe they do not have the capacity to appeal and they are happy to go on with what they are going on with. Why would we force it upon them that we listened to their appeals when we did not? Why would we then tell them that we are transferring this function to them when they did not ask for it? We are dealing with serious business in this House and it is important that we must lead from the front. When we spread out and listen to appeals- they do not have to come from all the counties or most of the counties like this one happened - we are going to expect to listen The electronic version of the Senate Hansard Report is for information purposes only. A certified version of this Report can be obtained from the Hansard Editor, Senate."
}