Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 674751,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/674751/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 97,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Kangáta",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 1826,
        "legal_name": "Irungu Kang'ata",
        "slug": "irungu-kangata"
    },
    "content": "is similar to the set up envisaged at the county level. It would be somehow weird if for instance we were to summon the President directly to appear before a committee of this House. Regarding powers of the National Assembly and the Senate to summon the President, the Constitution is silent. It does not say that you cannot summon the President or the Deputy President. Surely, it will be wrong for us to do so. We need to give some respect to those two key institutions. The question that now comes up is whether we should grant the county assemblies express powers to summon the governors. I belong to a school of thought that a governor should not be subjected to summons by the county assembly. The county assembly has the powers to summon the County Executive Committee (CEC) members in the manner we summon the Cabinet Secretaries (CS) at the national Government level. Therefore, I would be proposing that the Mover of this Bill exempt governors from being summoned by the county assemblies. I say so because I would imagine that the powers that we are granting the county assemblies may be used to pursue political vendetta. In any event, governors are always being summoned by the Senate. Governors can always be summoned by the National Assembly. In order to ensure that the seat of governor is insulated from abuse of these powers, we need to give that exemption and allow governors to be accountable to the county assembly through their CECs, as we do with the CSs in the National Assembly. The other area I would urge that we look at is the impact of Judiciary at county government operations. When you look at the history of our devolved units for the last three years, you will realise that so many court orders have been issued when matters are pending before the county assembly. I understand that we have a separate Bill which is proposing to amend the Constitution to address that issue, but there is nothing wrong for us to have a provision in this Bill which will somehow whittle down or protect the assemblies from that constant interference by the Judiciary. That is the only way they can perform their duties in a free and fair manner without fearing being summoned so that we have a situation where, if you have a complaint against the county assembly, we should await the outcome of that decision. We should await that regulation once it is passed, but we allow the county assembly to have that freedom to operate without fear of court orders and injunctions. Another aspect that I would be asking is for us to relook at this issue of county assemblies and their operations regarding motions. It has never been settled even here as to the legal effect of motions or resolutions once they have been passed by an assembly. I say that because about 30 or 40 per cent of our work does not entail making of laws per se . It entails passing resolutions and the adoption of reports and motions of committee. Therefore, we need to decide the legal effect of a resolution or a motion which is not drafted in form of a new law, but has been passed. Does that mean for instance that if it is directed against a County Executive Committee (CEC), the CEC must adhere to that resolution? Must a parastatal adhere to that resolution? In that regard, this Bill is one of the areas we can use to decide that jurisprudential question. It is a very crucial jurisprudential question as to when you pass a motion, what is the legal effect of that? Must the receiving party adhere to it or not? I have seen in some counties where for instance, we have vetting of executive officers. You come, you vet an executive officer, the county assembly rejects the report but then nothing happens. The governor proceeds to appoint that person to a certain position. This proposed law, in my opinion, should be crafted in such a manner that we give teeth to the county assembly where a report can lead to initiation of impeachment proceedings. Two, we can, for instance, add a clause saying once a report has 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."
}