Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 643617,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/643617/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 223,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Baiya",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 8,
        "legal_name": "Peter Njoroge Baiya",
        "slug": "peter-baiya"
    },
    "content": "Thank you, Hon. Deputy Speaker. I rise to reply on behalf of the Chairman of the Departmental Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, Hon. Chepkong’a, who asked me to hold brief for him. First, I record our appreciation to the various Members of this House who have made their contribution. Most of them have spoken in support. We have also noted the concerns that they raised and I wish to clarify the following. The Judges and Magistrates Vetting Board was a special institution that was set up to vet judges and magistrates who were in office as at the date of promulgation of the new Constitution. This arose from an arrangement that was made part of the transitional process as far as the inauguration of the new Constitution was concerned. The initial idea was that vetting would last one year within which all judges and magistrates who were then in office would have been vetted. Unfortunately, as the process of implementing that went underway, there was clear reaction from the judges and magistrates who were being vetted. Some went to court. It was not that the process was locked out from the court, but the court gave different interpretations. At times, the work of this Board kept being interrupted. After the decisions allowing the Board to proceed were made, more than one occasion we inevitably had to extend time to ensure that the process would go on. I want to confirm that so far, about 58 judges and over 258 magistrates have been vetted. That only concerns those who were in office as at the date of the promulgation of the Constitution. The new Constitution is very clear. Other judges and magistrates whose term is past the date of the new Constitution, the mandate of ensuring their vetting and conduct is constitutionally vested in the Judicial Service Commission (JSC). So, the mandate of this Board was very clear. It was for the period before the new Constitution. Indiscipline cases within the Judiciary fall squarely within the JSC whose mandate is also to take care of disciplinary issues. It is true that Kenyans have issues about the new dispensation after the vetting. It is also true that some of this information has also been brought to light by the experience of the Vetting Board. Part of the time we are going to extend will be spent preparing a report which they will share with the country, the experience of the process and hopefully give recommendations on the possible way forward or the way to carry forward the gains that have been made by the Judiciary through this process of vetting. I want to assure Members and the country at large that this Board did its work in a professional manner, particularly the arrangements that we had made that it would have components of foreign members sitting on it. The work they have done is all documented. 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."
}