Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 499494,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/499494/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 42,
    "type": "other",
    "speaker_name": "",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "(b) Whether he is satisfied, the foregoing notwithstanding that the interviews were conducted fairly and that all the candidates were treated equally and that there was no conflict of interest from among the Council Members? (c) How crucial information on the interviews leaked before it reached the candidates and the Cabinet Secretary? If the leakage was from the Council itself and whether he is satisfied that the Council has the moral authority to continue being in place? (d) Whether the whole process should be annulled and the position advertised anew to allow for a fair and transparent process leading to the appointment of the Vice Chancellor. Mr. Speaker, Sir, I wish to respond to the issues raised as follows:- (a) According to the University Act 2012, Section 35(i)(a)(1), one of the functions of Councils for Universities is to employ staff. Further, in Section 35(i)(a)(v), the University Council shall recommend for the appointment of the Vice Chancellor to the Cabinet Secretary. Therefore, the Council of the University of Nairobi acted within the law. Mr. Speaker, Sir, it is not true that it has been a norm in the past to have an independent body conduct an interview for the Vice-Chancellor and other senior management. As to whether the Council had the capacity to interview such crucial position, the answer is “yes” and they were doing what was within their mandate. With regard as to why there was much acrimony, no one knows the exact reason because this was treated as confidence. Whatever else happened, nobody knows. (b) All the Council Members signed a confidentiality and conflict of interest agreement. This was done both before the short listing and during the interview process. All the four candidates who had been shortlisted were treated equally. For example, at the end of the interview, they were asked to state whether the Council had given them a fair chance during the interview process. They all affirmed fair play. After the interview, they were requested to ask the Council any question that they would wish to be clarified. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the interviews were conducted fairly. (c) No one knows how the candidates’ marks and ranking were leaked and the persons responsible. Consequently, the entire Council cannot be judged to have no authority to continue being in place unless and until there is proven evidence that the Council was involved in the said leakage. (d) Since the whole process was transparent and was done in accordance with the University Act 2012 Section 35(1)(a)(v) which provides for a competitive process of recruitment, there is no justification for annulling the whole process and advertising anew. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Sir."
}