Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 539740,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/539740/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 158,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. (Ms.) Odhiambo-Mabona",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 376,
        "legal_name": "Millie Grace Akoth Odhiambo Mabona",
        "slug": "millie-odhiambo-mabona"
    },
    "content": "We know that a lot of our officers in this country have been fairly mischievous. What a person can do is to put an administrative notice inside their office or on a very obscure public notice board and consider that as public notice. So, I would suggest that we adopt the practice we adopted in the last Parliament by saying that the public notice may be in the Kenya Gazette or in regular newspapers. I am very happy that a linkage is provided with the Commission on Administrative Justice (CAJ). However, I would want to request the Departmental Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs that this is one of the areas that they probably need to look at more keenly so that the referral is not casual. The core mandates also need to be very clear otherwise you will have a clash. Indeed, some people had already called me with concern that this is a Bill that is taking over the work of the CAJ. We need to be very clear about the core mandates and possible clashes between those two bodies. On Clause 6, I am very happy that we are talking about the right of the public to information. However, what the Bill provides is not proactive sharing of information with the public in a lot of the instances other than the clause I have referred to before. We need to be more proactive in informing the public and not just when they ask for the information. I am happy under Clause 8 that we now have very clear standards for judicial review. However, I would want to just comment in relation to Clause 8(3), and I notice we erroneously provided for two sub-clauses (3) but that is not much of an issue. The first Clause 8(3)(a)(iv) provides that a ground for judicial review could be bias or where bias is suspected, I would want to encourage the Committee that when they are considering this--- I have worked for many years in Government Ministries and elsewhere as a consultant mainstreaming gender issues. When you leave issues like these open, the possibility of discrimination on the grounds of gender and disability is very open. So, let us provide in that clause very clearly that we are outlawing discrimination on grounds of gender or disability. I would also want to indicate under the second subclause (3) where it talks of unreasonable delay or failure to act in discharge of a duty imposed under any written law, that it is good that we have provided on the issue of unreasonable delay. The subclause reads:- “The Court or tribunal may entertain an application for judicial review made on the ground of unreasonable delay on the part of the administrative authority to act where it is shown to the satisfaction of the Court that— (a) the administrator is under duty to act in relation to the matter in issue; (b) the action is required to be undertaken within a period specified under such law. (c) the administrative authority has refused, failed or neglected to take action within the prescribed period.” That, therefore, means that when a period of time is not specified then you cannot go and challenge the action on the basis of unreasonable delay. I would suggest that we provide the standard of the reasonable time for delay so that even where time is not specified, the courts may use the standard of reasonableness. That will ensure we do not 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."
}