Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 596141,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/596141/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 170,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Mohamed Diriye",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 2995,
        "legal_name": "Diriye Abdullahi Mohamed",
        "slug": "diriye-abdullahi-mohamed"
    },
    "content": "You cannot give arbitrary powers to the President. Kenyans refused to have a President who is very powerful. We had this in the previous regimes of KANU under the Moi leadership and Kenyans voted for a new Constitution. One of the elements of the new Constitution is that we must have independent institutions. The National Police Service Commission (NPSC) must be independent, including the appointment of the Inspector-General of Police (IGP) and the Deputy Inspector-Generals. This proposed amendment that seeks to give the IGP the sole power to determine the distribution and deployment of officers in the service is not going to be very healthy for our country. Under the current National Police Service Act, 2011, the IGP must involve the NPSC and the County Policing Authority (CPA) in the distribution and deployment of officers. The involvement of the NPSC and the CPA provides for checks and balances, so that the IGP does not abuse his powers. If you give the IGP the power to distribute, transfer and act independently, this is going to reduce checks and balances, and is going to be bad for our country. This amendment will allow the IGP to distribute and deploy officers at will, and whenever he feels like with nobody to check him. This will ultimately affect the efficiency of the NPSC. Clause 13 of the proposed Statute Law (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill, 2015, also involves the President in the appointment of the Deputy IG after the recommendation of the NPSC. In the present Act, the President is not involved in the appointment of Deputy IG. Involving the Head of State in the recruitment of officers to the National Police Service interferes with the level of independence that is required for the proper functioning of the office of the DIG. This amendment should not be allowed at all for the purpose of having an independent Deputy IG. The Bill also seeks to delete Section 17 of the National Police Service Act, 2011 that provides for the process of the removal of the DIG. It seeks to introduce a new clause that the power to remove the IG will lie elsewhere. The effect of the proposed clause is that once the President is given the powers to remove the DIG, the Head of State will be in a position to take advantage and use this office for his personal advantage. Remember, we are making these laws not for the current Government only. The current President might be good, he might do this with good intentions, but in future, we do not know who will be the President. Giving this to any President, current or future, there is likelihood of it being abused. There is need to have an independent office of Deputy IG to overcome political influences. If this amendment passes, the President will hire and fire the IG just as it happened in the case of immediate former DIG, Madam Grace Kaindi. We are asking the President why that happened. Are we making all these amendments in the National Police Service Act, 2011, just to make sure that what happened to Grace Kaindi is perpetuated? The Bill further seeks to amend Section 29 of the National Police Service Act, 2011. It clothes the President with the power to appoint the Director-General (DG) of criminal investigations. Under the current Act, the process of employment of the DG is competitive. This is in line with the constitutional requirement of fair competition. However, under this amendment, the President will have the sole power to appoint the DG without any other process. The effect of this is that the President will be able to misuse the Office of the DG of criminal investigations to his own end. Further, this is in contravention of the principles of fairness, equality and due process as enshrined in the Constitution of Kenya, 2010."
}