Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 552262,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/552262/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 177,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Sakaja",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 13131,
        "legal_name": "Johnson Arthur Sakaja",
        "slug": "johnson-arthur-sakaja"
    },
    "content": "Advisory Board is purely advisory. If anything, a lot of the provisions and the language that was used in Clause 26 was written with a lot of finality. For instance if you read Clause 26 (a) it says: “The Audit Advisory Board shall deal with recruitment of senior managers. They shall determine the remuneration and other terms of appointment.” An advisory board should be purely advisory. The amendment by the Senate was written very well to make sure that it remains as such; purely advisory. In Clause 32, the provision in the original Bill was that a state organ and such entity has the leeway, they may forward the results of an internal audit to the AG. The word used there was “may.” The amendment that has been made seems to want to make it mandatory that all internal audits done by state organs should be sent to the AG. We feel that this may not be necessary because the following clause says that the AG has unhindered access to all reports. So, if he actually wants a report he can ask for it and so there is no need to make it mandatory for these state organs to transmit their reports to the AG. Apart from that significantly, this was an important issue that we discussed as a Committee. Clause 39 talks about auditing of national security organs. I must say that the Committee, the AG and every one that we spoke to including Treasury concur that national security organs must be audited. The auditing must be done in a proper way. However, the auditing of national state organs is a sensitive issue. What we felt is that at the beginning of this audit, the highest level in the AG’s office together with the highest level in that state organ must have an inception meeting to agree on areas which touch on national security and consequently determine the scope of the audit coverage. This is important because if we do not provide for this within the law may be some leaders of this national security organ might not want to be part of that inception meeting or might evade it. So, it is very important for us to put it in law that there is a mandatory inception meeting with the state organs and the AG when such audit begins. So, there we disagree because the Senate sought to delete that provision that provides for that inception meeting when auditing state organs. They also sought to delete Clause 2 which talks about redacting, to seal the identities of certain persons, their assets and liabilities. That is a security issue and we felt that we need to discuss this more conclusively because finally ---"
}