Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 550759,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/550759/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 210,
    "type": "other",
    "speaker_name": "",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "subject to the usual requirements of fair administrative procedures as we discussed in the other Bill. Mr. Temporary Speaker, Sir, there will be certain responsibilities by county governments in terms of ensuring that this Act is complied with. You will find that in Clause 33 onwards. Under Clause 35, the PPARB has the power to investigate breaches of this Act, either suo motu, which means, “on its own motion” or by request by any person. They must do so judiciously to avoid claims. If somebody complains in writing – we have seen this before – there must be a way of ensuring the complainant gets justice. However, at the same time, you protect people from witch-hunt where some anonymous people complain about imaginary things just to stop a process from taking place simply because they have not got what they wanted. Not because they have been denied, but because they did not qualify. A balance has to be struck in that regard. There are very strong powers, in Clause 36, to the PPARB to access – when they are investigating – information and make copies of documents and other powers that are associated with investigations. The DG of the Authority has powers to require a procuring entity to rectify an anomaly before it goes far. They have powers to even terminate the procurement process if they think the law has been breached. They have power to recommend action by other entities such as the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) and the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) if they think that some offence has been committed in a procurement activity. Any person who is aggrieved by the vast powers of the DG of the Authority has a right to be heard by the Authority before a decision is made. That was very well with the fair administrative action requirements that we have been discussing. However, other than the right to be heard, the person has a right to require judicial review in the High Court. Clause 41 talks about the possibility of somebody being debarred from participating in future procurement activities of Government if such a person, for example, is shown to be or has engaged in corruption; has defaulted in paying tax; has breached the Code of Ethics for procurement professionals or has breached a contract that he has been given by non-performance. We have very many cases where people present very nice credentials about their company, technical capacity and the financial capacity only for them to default in terms of performance. Such people can be debarred, but they, of course, have a right to be heard by way of judicial review in case the debarment is unfounded. Any person who is party to that decision of the DG may apply for judicial review. Part 5 is on internal organization of procuring entities. Again, Clauses 44 to 52 are like the technical procedural demands; that every procuring entity must ensure that there is an evaluation committee in every procuring entity. This committee must operate within certain standards, considering both technical and financial aspects of bids. The procurement officers in procuring entities must be professionals; people who are qualified and those qualifications are recognized by the professional body that recognizes 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."
}