Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 543460,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/543460/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 288,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Wakhungu",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 1889,
        "legal_name": "Chrisantus Wamalwa Wakhungu",
        "slug": "chrisantus-wamalwa-wakhungu"
    },
    "content": "Thank you, hon. Deputy Speaker. It is very disappointing to see Members of a Committee showing their differences on the Floor of the House. At the outset, I support this Report. The main objective of this Committee had nothing to do with the allegation of corruption but they were to look into issues of breach of privilege. When the Mover was moving, he attempted to highlight the Members who had breached privilege. He even mentioned them. Some of the reasons he advanced were that the people who had breached privilege are the ones who have been adversely affected when it comes to the recommendation. The PAC is a very important Committee. This is a critical Committee which is always headed by the Opposition. It oversees public expenditure and it is important that this Committee embraces teamwork, unity and must not show any level of division. When I look at the recommendations, I strongly feel the Committee should have gone ahead to dissolve the entire PAC as opposed to looking at a few cases. When you say we are looking at the issue of continuity, the technical person is the clerk and so long as the clerk is there, work can continue. This is not an issue of political parties. This is Committee work where both sides of the House are involved. For purposes of validity and reliability, I had expected the Chairman, when he was moving, to mention something on dissent. Looking at the Report, you realize that the nominated Member of Parliament had dissented. However, when he was moving, hon. Cheboi deliberately missed out this issue. He did not mention anything about it. The nominated hon. Member did not support the Report. So, in line with precedent and the traditions of this House it would have been important for him to highlight that Members supported this, but one Member of Parliament, hon. Zuleikha did not. She might not be here, but he should have mentioned that hon. Zuleikha dissented and that there is a minority Report. I even spoke to her. She indicated to me that she actually dissented. The Chairman ought to have given the reasons for her dissent. However, he ignored that. I find that to be completely out of order. He should have mentioned something."
}