Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 676678,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/676678/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 144,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Ababu",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 108,
        "legal_name": "Ababu Tawfiq Pius Namwamba",
        "slug": "ababu-namwamba"
    },
    "content": "We already did this with the national Government when this House enacted, in 2010, a Private Member’s Bill, moved by the then Member for Garsen, Hon. Danson Mungatana, that provided a framework for public appointments in the national Government. I dare say that before that Bill came to this House, we had had a very chaotic arrangement of attempting to engage public servants through vetting by this House. It was like groping in the dark. We were attempting to undertake an exercise without a legal framework. It was like a sailor in high seas attempting to get to a destination without a compass or any sailing guide. It is the same scenario that we have experienced with county governments. We put in place these governments and we expected them to hire various cadres of civil servants without providing a legal framework for them to undertake that critical task. Therefore, I want to fully support the enactment of this piece of legislation because it will answer to a very critical need in the process of putting in place a credible and effective Civil Service to run the affairs of county governments. This will ensure that we standardise the process across all the 47 counties. It will provide standards in the sense that we will have a clear procedure on how officers for various positions in the governments are recruited. We will have standards in terms of qualifications. Qualifications are key. The qualifications required for any particular cadre of civil servant be it in Turkana, Kwale or Busia, will be pretty much the same. Before I go on too much, there is one clause of this Bill which may run the risk of being considered unconstitutional. That is Clause 12 of the Bill, which purports to hand the vetting committee similar powers as those of the High Court. Looking at the wording of Clause 12(2)(a), (b) and (c), the drafters of this Bill merely imported, word for word, provisions of Article 125 of the Constitution. In fact, I will invite you to put the said provisions of the Bill we are debating now side by side with Article 125 of the Constitution. For the avoidance of doubt and for the record, allow me to read what Article 125(1) of the Constitution says:- “Either House of Parliament, and any of its committees, has power to summon any person to appear before it for the purpose of giving evidence or providing information.” The corresponding Clause 12(1) of the Bill reads:- “The Committee shall have power to summon any person to appear before it for the purpose of giving evidence or providing information during the approval hearing.” The devil is in Article 125(2) of the Constitution, which reads that:- “For the purposes of Clause (1), a House of Parliament and any of its committees has the same powers as the High Court— (a) to enforce the attendance of witnesses and examine them on oath, affirmation or otherwise; (b) to compel the production of documents; and (c) to issue a commission or request to examine witnesses abroad.” The corresponding provision on the Bill reads as follows:- “For the purpose of Section 1, the committee shall have the same powers as the High Court— (a) to enforce the attendance of witnesses and examine them on oath, affirmation or otherwise; (b) to compel the production of documents; and (c) to issue a commission or request to examine witnesses abroad.” 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."
}