Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 435693,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/435693/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 481,
    "type": "other",
    "speaker_name": "",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "My justification is that the amendment proposed in Section 8(a)(i) flies at the face of Article 246(3)(b) of the Constitution. Article 246(3)(b) of the Constitution is clear on the mandate of the Commission and it reads that:- “(3) The Commission shall— ( b ) observing due process, exercise disciplinary control over and remove persons holding or acting in offices within the Service; and---” What is proposed is that notwithstanding the provisions of any written law, independent command of the Inspector-General in relation to the Service envisioned in Article 245(2)(b) and Section 8 of the Act means that the Inspector-General shall be responsible for all matters relating to the command and discipline of the Service subject to disciplinary control of the Commission. The effect of this proposed amendment is not constitutional. In fact, it robs the Commission of the mandate that is given to it under the Constitution. So, I want to say that if we allow anyone, in this legislation, to make amendments that are contrary to the Constitution, then any member of the public may move to the court and then Parliament will seem to be making legislation in vain. But most importantly, in Section 8, what is proposed to be amended reads that the Cabinet Secretary may lawfully give a direction to the Inspector-General with respect to any matter of policy for the National Police Service. This again clearly contradicts Article 245(4), which reads that:- “(4) The Cabinet secretary responsible for police services may lawfully give a direction to the Inspector-General with respect to any matter of policy for the National Police Service, but no person may give a direction to the Inspector-General with respect to— (a) the investigation of any particular offence or offences; (b) the enforcement of the law against any particular person or persons; or (c) the employment, assignment, promotion, suspension or dismissal of any member of the National Police Service”. So, clearly, the current law has captured the spirit and the letter of the Constitution. What has happened here is that the Cabinet Secretary only gives directions. So, there is a caveat in the Constitution saying that the Cabinet Secretary may not give directions. It is clear under Article 245. So, again, if we allow this amendment, then we remove the caveat and secondly, we want to shield the Inspector-General from the Executive because then it will mean that apart from Article 157, which gives the Director of Public Prosecutions authority to inform or give directions to the Inspector-General, then we will be inviting the Executive to give directions to the Inspector-General. So, again, if we allow this to happen, somebody will move to court and then this legislation will be said to be unconstitutional. So, why do we want to make laws that cannot withstand the test of time even in our courts of law? For me, I am proposing a deletion of the entire Section 8(a)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv) and (v) for the reasons that I have raised. I ask the Members to support me in this."
}