Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 647721,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/647721/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 194,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Oyugi",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 444,
        "legal_name": "Augostinho Neto Oyugi",
        "slug": "augostinho-neto-oyugi"
    },
    "content": "The doctrine of separation of powers speaks to an independent Judiciary, Legislature and Executive. Judicial independence, apart from the fact that the judges ought to be free and exercise freewill in dispensing justice, ought to also be coupled with financial independence. For a long time now, we have suffocated the Judiciary. An independent Judiciary ought to be one that is also in charge of its own purse so that they decide what to do with it. Even though I speak to an independent Judiciary that is in charge of its funds, that does not mean that the Judiciary cannot be held accountable for those particular monies. That distinction ought to be very clear. It is a problem that we had with the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) when we asked them as the Departmental Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs to account for monies that they had been given and there was misappropriation. The fact that you are free and independent simply means that you are still answerable to the various arms of Government when the time comes to answer to them. That is what interdependence is about. That someone is allowed to check you. The same way that they can rule the laws that Parliament makes to be unconstitutional is the same way we can also find them to have misused funds and to hold them accountable for those funds. This Bill, in its objectives under Clause 3, sets the reasons for which we are making this Fund. It is going to help the Judiciary in doing its administrative work, in running the Judiciary efficiently and making sure that half the work they do is in order and sufficiently funded. What I like about this Bill is the fact that the money we give the Judiciary will not be returned to the Exchequer but will be deposited in the Fund. Essentially, that would mean that the Judiciary will constantly have money to run its affairs. If at all they come up with appropriate budgets, they should have money carried over in the financial years that will always be useful for them. Clause 10 creates obligations on the part of the Chief Registrar to keep the books of accounts in line with the Public Audit Act of 2003. The Chief Registrar is expected, within a period of three months from the end of each financial year, to submit to the Auditor-General the accounts of the Fund. That accounting principle is fairly important so that we at least stipulate the timelines of how they will show cause of what they have done with the money. It is also anticipated that the accounts of the Fund shall be audited and reported in accordance with the Public Audit Act. We have had problems with the Judiciary, even as currently constituted, in terms of how they spend money. Now that we are creating for them a specific Fund, the auditing function, follow up and oversight of this Fund should be more stringent because they now have money on their own volition. As a Member of the Departmental Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs I am aware that year in, year out, even in this Supplementary Budget, the Judiciary has not been able to use all the monies that are allocated to it, either because they do not have the absorption capacities or some other reason. To have a Fund where they are going to have a lot of money retained year in, year out calls for more reason so that proper oversight is taken into consideration, so that the money, even though it is retained, does not go to waste. Clause 11 of the Bill speaks to the fact that within three months after the end of each financial year, the Chief Registrar shall report to the National Assembly with regard to the operations of the Fund. That is also important in terms of Parliament monitoring the Judiciary in terms of what they have done and how they are planning to do other works to see if they are at all attaining their mandate in terms of the work that they set out to do within the meaning of the monies they applied for. 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."
}