Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 624308,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/624308/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 335,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Kang’ata",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 1826,
        "legal_name": "Irungu Kang'ata",
        "slug": "irungu-kangata"
    },
    "content": "Thank you, Hon. Temporary Deputy Speaker. I rise to support the recommendation of the Committee. I believe, from a legal point of view, the plain reading of that section of the Constitution is very clear. That section vests jurisdiction of transfer of functions on this entity called TA. It is true, and I agree that, that section does not expressly bar an extension of term. But if you were to argue from that point of view, we shall be raising a dangerous precedent. Even the Constitution does not say in express terms that the President shall not, for instance, be a President for six or seven years. It only says the President shall serve for five years. This means that if you were to argue that you need an express provision in the Constitution to bar any time beyond five years, then the same applies to several other time limits that have been set by the Constitution, which may include the term of office of a parliamentarian. So, the Constitution is very clear. If the Constitution says three years, it is three years. Beyond that, you have to amend the Constitution. Therefore, from where I sit, even assuming that I am wrong, the current law will lapse in March 2016. This means that unless you are coming up with a new entity, TA will not be there. As at March 2016, we shall not have a new law. We shall now be creating a new body which is not founded on any law. That will not be legally possible. We cannot extend the term of TA, even assuming we have that power to extend, beyond March because of time constraints. I still insist that a term that is set by the Constitution lapses after the set period. Otherwise, we shall be opening up what is called a legal Pandora’s Box. A president or a member of parliament may say that he or she is not barred expressly from serving more than five years. Let us agree that TA has died, from a legal point of view. We may have moral reasons which may support an extension of its term, but it is too bad from a legal point of view. We cannot do much. I also feel that Authority is like the Vetting of Judges and Magistrates Board; those entities which have been procrastinating with a view of getting money from various entities. Within three years, TA ought to have finished its job. We should not support people who have some vested interests for their continued existence in office. Let us allow the new body to take over the mandate of TA. I am sure that body is competent. In any event, it is provided for under the law. We shall see what happens thereafter. Finally, when you look at the Report that has been given by the TA, it is not sufficient. They ought to have given us a time matrix on what we are supposed to do within the set time. The kind of Report they have given us is not sufficient. With that, I support the Report. We should support the TA to die. Thank you. 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."
}