HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept
{
"id": 65448,
"url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/65448/?format=api",
"text_counter": 312,
"type": "other",
"speaker_name": "",
"speaker_title": "",
"speaker": null,
"content": "interested in applying to be a judge in the next round of applications. You will definitely feel intimated and, maybe, bend to his or her whims. I very strongly recommend that any person who accepts to take a position in the Judicial Service Commission or any other Commission that is connected to the Judiciary completely gives up practicing as an Advocate of the High Court. In connection with Clause 20, I will make my fourth point which talks about the Secretariat of the Commission. I want the Minister to report, with regard to this one, the idea of a County Judge being the administrative head in the County. However, he will need some secretarial support. Let us create the reality here. Let us build it because we have the power, as the Parliament of Kenya, to require the Judiciary to fund a secretariat so that we make it real and the judges will be able to administer county level judicial services. I come to my fifth proposal with regard to the monies we will be voting as Parliament to the Judicial Service Commission. You will see that under Clause 27, a Judiciary Fund has been set up by law. I agree completely that we must have, and I have urged for this position many times, an independent Judiciary. It must be at the level of Parliament where once they make their budget and present it as a first charge to the Consolidated Fund, it is funded without many questions or procedures, including an extra appropriation law for it to take effect. However, I think in the creation of this law, matters of finance of the Judiciary have gone a bit too far. I want to propose that the Minister considers deleting Clause 27(3). Here, it is suggested that the receipts, earnings and accruals of this Fund and any balances at the closing financial year, they shall not be paid back to the Consolidated Fund. They will be retained in the Judiciary Fund for the purposes of running it. They then say that the money that has been made, for example, from the court fines and all the other things through which the courts raise revenue. So, they should be allowed to retain it as the Judiciary. Then, if they have proposed developments within the Judiciary and they do not use that money, they also keep the money. I am wondering where we are going with this. Parliament itself, if we do not use our funds to the end, we must return it to the Consolidated Fund. First of all, as an institution, we have the first charge on the Consolidated Fund. Secondly, there are requirements in terms of planning that the Treasury must take into consideration. If we say that Parliament can remain with whatever remains from what is voted to it and in the next year, they can charge the Consolidated Bank, this will mean that if it saves, it will continue growing its Fund on one side and continue making accruals on the other side in complete and total disregard of what is happening at the Treasury and the rest of the country. We cannot have that situation continue. I will propose that we should not go too far. They have a first charge in the Consolidated Fund just like Parliament. If they do not utilize those funds, they should return the money to the Consolidated Fund and let it be planned as usual with every other institution of the Government. Looking at Clause 28(3), I want to ask the Minister why there is reference to the word âMinisterâ even at the introduction. In the section that talks about interpretation, there is also reference to âMinisterâ. In a very interestingly manner, the same law seems to impute the idea that, in fact, there will still be a Minister for Finance. Unless this Bill was drafted before the promulgation of the new Constitution, we do not have Ministers. I"
}