Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 518689,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/518689/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 280,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Sen. Murkomen",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 440,
        "legal_name": "Onesimus Kipchumba Murkomen",
        "slug": "kipchumba-murkomen"
    },
    "content": "Mr. Speaker, Sir, I want to go straight to Article 245 of the Constitution. The Constitution is very clear that the Inspector-General of Police shall be appointed by the President with the approval of Parliament. That is our Constitution. In fact, it was erroneous in the past that we had to create extra---. This is a direct appointment from the President. When we talk about matters of security, we are basically saying that the buck and ultimate responsibility stops with the Commander-in-Chief. In the past, it was very difficult for him to fire anybody. Article 245 (7) of the Constitution still provides in the Constitution that:- “The Inspector-General may be removed from office by the President only on the grounds of— (a) serious violation of this Constitution or any other law, including a contravention of Chapter Six; (b) gross misconduct whether in the performance of the office holder’s functions or otherwise; (c) physical or mental incapacity to perform the functions of office; (d) incompetence; (e) bankruptcy; or (f) any other just cause.” We have a candidate who has been provided for by the person with whom the buck stops. He is confident that this is the person who is capable to deliver the service under him. He reserves the constitutional responsibility to fire him. If that person, after six months, a year, two years or before the four years end is incompetent, the same appointing authority has the power to fire that person, appoint another person and bring his name to this House for vetting and approval. So, we must first trust that, ultimately, apart from just having an Inspector-General who is going to serve us, that Inspector General sits in the National Security Council and is answerable to the President. Secondly, there have been stories here which have been said about Mr. Kimaiyo, which are not true. Mr. Kimaiyo is a career policeman of over 35 years. He rose from the lowest rank to the highest rank. He was not fired but resigned voluntarily in writing. So, trying to insinuate here that he had failed is not right. It was not about failure. He made a very courageous decision that is rarely taken by many people in this country. If you were to tell Sen. Khalwale to resign today, he would not. Very few people are willing to take responsibility, but Mr. Kimaiyo did and offered to retire early, so that he can give another person a chance. It is not because he had failed, but he felt that it was important to have another person. Even Mr. Arachi is not a career policeman. He joined the Police late in life. Before then, he was in administration. So, I think the points raised by Sen. Khalwale were misleading. Mr. Speaker, Sir, I want to conclude by saying that a lot has been said about the size of the nominee for the position of Inspector-General of Police and his community. A lot has also been said about whether he studied online or he was physically in class. It is not the size of the dog that matters, but the size of the fight in that dog. Most people have looked at this man as slim and quiet. That is the same way that the children of Israel and 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."
}