Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 545012,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/545012/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 334,
    "type": "other",
    "speaker_name": "",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "need a person below a subchief. Are we saying that the subchief or the assistant chief is not effective? What is the purpose? Mr. Temporary Speaker, Sir, this Memorandum of Objects of Reasons does not specify because it says: “The village elders continue playing a critical role in matters of security; the elders work closely with the chiefs and subchiefs and they have become an integral part of the functioning of the national government at village level. It is, therefore, proposed that they be recruited and appointed by the Public Service Commission (PSC)”. There is no criteria which has been set out. It is as ambiguous as it can be. This amendment would lead to even more dangerous precedence because the structures of village elders are not uniform throughout the Republic and, therefore, in an attempt to recognize the already informal structures in other areas which have elders who help in security matters, who by reasonable extension have to extend to areas where you do not have village elders conducting these functions. There must be another method; that you can recognize the village elders who are performing a role without necessarily, including them in this because we will have to go back to the National Coordination Act and then say: How many village elders are we going to recognize? Is it ten, seven or eight? What would be their minimum age; is it 90 years, 70 years or 80 years? What would be their education qualifications? Would it be a Form Four certificate or what? We are making an amendment that will not have legs to stand on. We would then increase the wage bill and complicate the work of the provincial administration. In my own view, we will be going against what the Kenyan public passed by demanding that the provincial administration be restructured within five years of the promulgation of this Constitution. Those five years will expire on 26th or 27th August, 2015. This amendment will be against the principle upon which we thought we should restructure provincial administration and give more powers to county governments, to manage villages and wards. I beg to oppose this proposed amendment to Clause 15A for the reasons that I have stated. One, we are creating a fund which is not within our mandate as the Senate. Two, we are also violating the Constitution by getting into matters of security, in a way that would suggest that the security function is a matter that is shared between the national Government and the county governments. This is something that has not been resolved. The Cabinet Secretary in charge of devolution was very clear in Kisumu; that this is not a shared function. Unless and until we have a policy formulation that states that security is a shared function, we should not in this amendment pretend that it is, because it is not. When it is then accepted that it is a shared function, under Article 189 of the Constitution, we will not start at the village level, but at the top. In the proposal made by the CORD to amend the Constitution, we have even given direction on this issue. We have suggested that there should be a council chaired by the governor at the county level, so that we start the shared functions of security at the county level. Until those amendments find their way into the Constitution, this amendment is unconstitutional to that extent. With those few remarks, I beg to oppose."
}