Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 460414,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/460414/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 234,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Gikaria",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 2489,
        "legal_name": "David Gikaria",
        "slug": "david-gikaria"
    },
    "content": "Thank you, hon. Speaker, for giving me this opportunity to contribute to this Motion. I support the Motion as amended and from the outset I want to echo what the Leader of Majority Party said, that this Parliament should protect and uphold the Constitution by not defending anybody. Parliament must be given an opportunity to do our work and perform our responsibility of oversight over the Executive. If you look at the report meant for observation, the establishment of the offices--- What the Committee observed is that the Cabinet Secretary did violate Article 234 of the Constitution by establishing offices when that is the responsibility of the Public Service Commission. The first paragraph on page 8 states: “It is worth noting that communication relating to the appointment, establishment and transfers in the Public Service Commission emanated from the Cabinet Secretary and not the authorized officer appointed by the Commission.” I want to agree that the Committee found the Cabinet Secretary not in order. There was a breach of the Constitution by unilaterally establishing an office and going ahead to gazette the same office and the officer. Going further, the Cabinet Secretary, as per the last statement on page 8, unilaterally vested powers that are otherwise clearly provided for by the transition clauses of the Constitution. The appointments that the Cabinet Secretary made were unconstitutional as per the provisions of Article 234(2)(a)(ii). Even though she accepted that she made the appointments in an acting capacity, that is still unconstitutional. As regards the transfers, the Committee noted that the procedures in place for transfer of public officers in Job Group “P” and above from the present post to a post of different designation in the same Ministry or to another Ministry, were not adhered to. Therefore, as regards transfer of public officers from one Ministry to another, the responsibility is not bestowed upon the Office of the Cabinet Secretary. According to the Constitution, the function is supposed to be performed by the National Land Commission and the Public Service Commission. Publication of legal notices is supposed to be done with the advice of the Attorney-General. However, if you look at the legal notice that was eventually gazetted by the Cabinet Secretary, you will appreciate that the advice of the Attorney-General is missing. She went against the advice of the Attorney-General. Although she indicated at the Joint Committee sitting that she sought advice from the Attorney-General regarding the legal notice, we can see clearly from the minutes of the Committee that she never sought such advice. Therefore, the gazettement of the legal notice was unconstitutional. One of the issues that are very important, as indicated on page 10, is that none of her acts was backed by any law. She just acted unilaterally. Of course, as it has been said, the appointment of Mr. Kahuho to the position of Director-General was an act of impunity since that position does not exist in the Ministry’s establishment. We now go to the last observation of the Committee on the transfer of Mr. Mabea and other officers from the Ministry. The Cabinet Secretary had no mandate, under any The electronic version of the Official Hansard Report is for information purposesonly. A certified version of this Report can be obtained from the Hansard Editor."
}