Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 563690,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/563690/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 351,
    "type": "other",
    "speaker_name": "",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "reasons as to why they left the previous employer. It is important that in this First Schedule, that be indicated. I now move on to No.30 in the First Schedule where they ask; “Have you ever been adversely mentioned in an investigatory report of Parliament or any other commission of inquiry in the last three years?” I would like us to amend it and include “investigatory report of Parliament and county assemblies” This is because the county assemblies have now started doing investigatory reports and will be making recommendations. So, if some character in a particular county has been found not to be able, for whatever reasons, he should not sneak his way into another county. Madam Temporary Speaker, this is the real gist of the matter. I know of many public officers in this country who if the National Assembly just bothered to go and read the Public Investments Committee (PIC) and the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) reports, would not even be allowed to say their names. In fact, the furthest that they could be allowed is to confirm that they are the same people who were named in the reports. However, these people continue getting jobs. So, what is the need of carrying out those investigations if we do not use the reports a few years later after the reports have been made? Why does the Chairman insist on three years? Does he mean that if a guy was discovered a crook six years ago and wants a job now, he has he cleansed himself? People do not become clean by virtue of the passage of time. It should read that “if one has been mentioned adversely,” it does not matter whether it is three or four previous years. We want to raise the bar of public service. It is the young Senator, Sen. M. Kajwang, who has told us about the misfortune of taking Chapter Six of the Constitution for granted. Madam Temporary Speaker, it is very difficult after the Supreme Court allowed seven people to run for high offices and said that the matter was not binding for them to be denied an opportunity to run by the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC). It has become so difficult to bar other jokers who now want to sneak into public offices. I propose that we delete No.31. It asks: “Have you any objection to the making of inquiries with your present employer and referees in the process of considering your nomination?” How can you make that optional? We should just delete it. It is important that the Committee looks for information from anybody and everybody. In the Second Schedule, is the question of weighting of performance; I support them for what they have done, but believe that you cannot ask all the other questions that have been asked in the First Schedule and then end up not giving any marks to it. If you have talked about integrity or marital status in the First Schedule, you must score them. If you are not going to score my marital status, then why ask me? You are asking me for my marital status, so that I can get certain marks. If you think that Sen. (Dr.) Khalwale, who is a polygamist, should score less, then let me get less marks. However, because I have proven that I can practice multiparty democracy in my family, I should 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."
}