Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 459442,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/459442/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 598,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Wandayi",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 2960,
        "legal_name": "James Opiyo Wandayi",
        "slug": "james-opiyo-wandayi"
    },
    "content": "On a point of order, hon. Temporary Deputy Speaker. I rise under Standing Order No.47(3)(b) which I am sure most Members are conversant with and I do not need to belabor the point. The Constitution under Article 246 expressly gives the Police Service Commission the mandate to exercise disciplinary control, remove persons holding or acting in offices within the service, and perform any other functions prescribed by national legislation. The gist of my argument is that if you look at this amendment Bill, it purports to re-define the meaning of “disciplinary control”, which is totally against the provisions of Article 246 of the Constitution. Nowhere under this Constitution is that mandate vested on any other body, authority or person other than the National Police Service Commission. I could invite you to even look at Article 245, which gives the Inspector General the powers. There is nowhere under that article where the Inspector General of Police is given any power or mandate concerning the matter of disciplinary control. If you look at what is being proposed in this Bill, it is basically trying to water down the powers of the National Police Service Commission, in contravention of the provisions of Article 246 of the Constitution. I do not need to take you through the amendment because it is very clear. It talks of developing and prescribing fair and clear disciplinary procedures. It goes on talking about reviewing and ratifying disciplinary actions taken by the Inspector General."
}