Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 599755,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/599755/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 155,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Speaker",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "Hon. Members, you have canvassed this matter sufficiently. You have raised many points that also show some of the new grounds that we have to cover. Not least, Hon. Dalmas finally brought in the provision of Article 168(5) on the removal of the CJ. The tribunal appointed by the President is to be chaired by the Speaker of the National Assembly and its membership should include three judges of superior courts. However, that provision of the Constitution is crafted such as to give distinction to what it is the tribunal will be handling. With regard to the issues of accountability and oversight, for the time being, bearing in mind what Hon. Dalmas has said, respect and decorum are expected. However, Hon. Kaluma has raised a point on the provision of Article 95(5)(a) giving the National Assembly the mandate to review the conduct of all State officers, including the President and the Deputy President (DP), and to initiate the process of their removal from office. Under Article 260 of the Constitution, every one of us is a State officer. So, indeed, the National Assembly is vested with peculiar powers when it comes to the issue of oversight. Paragraph (b) of the same Article 95(5) of the Constitution mandates the National Assembly to oversee all State organs. The PSC and the JSC are State organs. For the time being, what is our mechanism of overseeing State organs? In the area of expenditure, it is through the PAC and the PIC and, on operational matters, through our various Departmental Committees. There is need for us to come up with clear guidelines. However, those guidelines cannot override the provisions of the Constitution. Article 125 of the Constitution empowers both Houses and their committees to summon and not just invite, any person to give evidence even on oath on any matter, including compelling such summoned persons to produce documents. What the CJ refers to as summons was merely an invitation. He is borrowing from words picked outside there loosely. This is a very dicey area. If the Speaker commits a crime, is he not to be taken to court? We must ask ourselves all those questions. If the Speaker is also said to have committed an offence as the Chairperson of the PSC, again, he should appear before PAC. If he does not appear, we will be failing in our responsibility and power vested in us by Articles 95 and 125 of the Constitution respectively. I can see the difficulty Hon. Dalmas has about the heads of arms of Government appearing before Parliament or before another arm. For the time being, I appreciate what PAC did by according the CJ all the relevant co-operation and decorum, including taking the rare move of sending to the CJ particularised questions which he was expected to come and answer. The letter dated 18th June, 2014 was sent to the CJ because he requested to be given details of the questions that the Committee felt he needed to personally respond to. The Committee appreciated the Office of the CJ, but also recognised that the CJ was being invited as the Chair of the JSC. I agree with you that there is need for us to adjourn debate on this Motion and come up with a clear guideline on how to invite heads of other arms of the Government. If we were to take the rout of not inviting and/or summoning any person, as the case may be, or if I were to rule that, that is not possible, I would be violating the Constitution, specifically Article 125. The The electronic version of the Official Hansard Report is for information purposesonly. A certified version of this Report can be obtained from the Hansard Editor."
}