HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept
{
"id": 68064,
"url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/68064/?format=api",
"text_counter": 351,
"type": "speech",
"speaker_name": "Mr. Wako",
"speaker_title": "The Attorney-General",
"speaker": {
"id": 208,
"legal_name": "Sylvester Wakoli Bifwoli",
"slug": "wakoli-bifwoli"
},
"content": " Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, Sir, for giving me this opportunity to support the application of the Minister for Justice, National Cohesion and Constitutional Affairs. Mr. Speaker, Sir, I want first of all, to commend the Commission on Implementation of the Constitution. In so doing, I also want to commend this House. I think we tend to forget that this House approved the appointment of this Commission during its last sitting on 22nd December, 2010. His Excellency the President then very quickly formalized the appointments on 29th December, 2010. This was during the period when everybody was on vacation. His Excellency the President and the people who work with him were busy working and he appointed this Commission on 29th December. Mr. Speaker, Sir, immediately after the new year the Commission was sworn in on 4th January. They did not waste any time but began meeting immediately they were sworn in. I had a day-long session with them the following day, on 5th January, 2011. By 17th January, yesterday, they had already done considerable work on the two Bills. They called both the Minister for Justice, National Cohesion and Constitutional Affairs and myself, who are the line Ministers in these matters, to talk about the two Bills. The situation is very simple; it is true that had it worked out, at least the Judicial Service Commission Bill would have been enacted before we adjourned. It would have been properly enacted at that time, because I believe that was the spirit of the new Constitution. In as much as the new Constitution envisaged the Judicial Service Commission being appointed even prior to the appointment of Commission on Implementation of the Constitution, we could have moved, and properly so, and enacted the Bill. But the fact of the matter is that Parliament did not enact this Bill. Since that time, the Commission is now in place. Now that the Commission is in place, it behoves all of us to work in accordance with the letter and spirit of this Commission to ensure that any legislation that is required to implement the Constitution meets the criteria set out under Section 261(4) of the Constitution, in that it is this Parliament which enacted the legislation which has been listed in the Fifth Schedule, and it is the Attorney-General, in consultation with the Commission, who prepares the Bills before they are tabled on the Floor of this House. Mr. Speaker, Sir, the Minister has now requested this withdrawal to ensure that now that the Commission is in place, the relevant section of the Constitution is followed in any Bill that underpins this Constitution. It will be followed. I can see the spirit of the Commission. Members are very keen. They have studied these two Bills and so on. They have even made some proposals that they be withdrawn and we go through consultation and re-publish them; after consultation we will then bring these Bills before this House. I just want to say that there is nothing to apologize for. The history is there and I think from now on, the letter and spirit of this has to be followed. Mr. Speaker, Sir, with those few remarks, I support the application made by the Minister for Justice, National Cohesion and Constitutional Affairs."
}