Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 606217,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/606217/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 45,
    "type": "other",
    "speaker_name": "",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "such officers: That it is a public trust and it must be exercised in a manner that demonstrates respect for people and institutions. The second part says; in a manner that brings honour and dignity to the offices that they hold. It also says; in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity of that office. When you look at those three points in Chapter 6, you ask yourself if the National Assembly exercises that public trust that they have been given in a manner that has been defined or described in this Chapter. The answer will be, no. If anything, they have brought disrepute, disrespect and indignity to the office. I do not think they can claim in any way to have promoted public confidence in the manner in which they allocated resources in this Budget. Mr. Speaker, Sir, the same Constitution also says that the guiding principles of leadership and integrity among other things, in exercising their power, they are required to have objectivity and impartiality in decision making. This is the most interesting part of that provision. Those decisions are not influenced by, among other things, improper motives or corrupt practices. Is there anyone in this House or country who doubts that the decision making process on that matter of policy making of the Budget by the National Assembly was actually influenced by improper motives with regard to the Judiciary, the JRC and the Senate? In their debate, as captured in the HANSARD, they were very clear that they were punishing these institutions for disobeying them. In other words, it was malicious, vengeful and clearly an improper motive. That is also in total disregard of Article 10 about the national values. In any enactment of a law or policy making action like this one of the Budget, a State officer like Members of Parliament must make decisions in accordance with the national values. What comes out very clearly is that these Members of Parliament in allocating resources in the Budget, they were in breach of the provisions of Chapter 6 because of the fact that their decision making was influenced by improper motive. This amounts to abuse of power and authority. In the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Act, that abuse of power and authority is defined as corruption. Therefore, I want to call upon the Ethics and Anti Corruption Commission (EACC) to investigate the Members of the National Assembly with regard to the process of budgetary allocation. Mr. Speaker, Sir, there is another reason I want them investigated. Three weeks ago, there was a major story in a section of the media which has not been disputed by the National Assembly to date. This was a headline story. They said that in the process of budget making, the Budget and Appropriations Committee of the National Assembly, there was high stakes lobbying; “Secret deal cutting”, intensive politics with a shade of Executive pressure. They concluded: “The whole process was prone to bribery or extortion”. I want to ask the EACC who I know are already investigating the National Assembly Committee on Legal Affairs and the Committee on Agriculture. What stops them from investigating the Budget and Appropriations Committee that is influenced through secret deal cutting by suppliers, contractors and businessmen who are chasing big time Government contracts? Resource allocation has been converted into a gravy train where money is allocated on the basis of where there is likely to be a deal. This was reported and it has not been disputed to date by our colleagues. 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."
}