HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept
{
"id": 69003,
"url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/69003/?format=api",
"text_counter": 434,
"type": "other",
"speaker_name": "",
"speaker_title": "",
"speaker": null,
"content": "“The Judicial Service Commission shall be appointed within 60 days after the effective date, and the Commission shall be deemed to be properly constituted under this Constitution despite the fact that there may be a vacancy in its membership because of any of the bodies nominated or electing members have not done so”. Therefore, pursuant to this provision of the Constitution, the Committee initiated the process of assisting the House in vetting members identified to serve on the Judicial Service Commission. The members that the Committee has considered for purposes of this Report are nominees of the Law Society of Kenya (LSK), nominees of the Public Service Commission, nominees of the public and a nominee of the Court of Appeal. Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, I will now proceed to quickly share with the House profiles of the respective nominees and observations of the Committee in respect of the suitability of those nominees to serve in the Judicial Service Commission. The LSK is mandated, under Article 171(2)(f) of the Constitution, to nominate two persons to serve on the Judicial Service Commission. Accordingly, the LSK conducted elections to elect two persons to represent the society on the Commission. Through a letter addressed to this House, the LSK submitted the names of Mr. Ahmednassir Abdullahi and Miss Florence Muoti Mwangangi as representatives of the society on the Judicial Service Commission. Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, on 26th October, 2010, the Committee held a vetting session during which it looked at the suitability of these two persons, looking at the grounds of education, employment record, professional associations, political affiliation, potential conflict of interest, moral probity and ethics, among others. It is important for this House to take note of the fact that at the very beginning of the vetting exercise of these two nominees, Mr. Ahmednassir, one of the nominees of the LSK, challenged the jurisdictional mandate of the National Assembly to vet his appointment to the Judicial Service Commission, his argument being that since he had been elected by a membership organisation, he should not be subject to any vetting or confirmation as the act of election had already confirmed him as a member of the Judicial Service Commission. He raised this objection at the Committee meeting held on 26th October, 2010. While the LSK, as an institution, never stated its position on this matter, including at the same meeting, where the society’s chairperson and secretary attended, sentiments in the media attributed to the chairperson of the LSK seemed to support the position taken by Mr. Ahmednassir. Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, it is, indeed, important for purposes of the House and for purposes of future vetting processes. The Committee considered Mr. Ahmednassir’s objection and disagreed with him on his interpretation of the Constitution. The Committee held the view that the Constitution, under the new dispensation, vested in Parliament specific and general powers to vet nominees to key public offices, including members to Commissions such as the Judicial Service Commission. This is part of the Legislature’s oversight mandate. The Committee then gave the nominee and the LSK the option of withdrawing from the confirmation process. Mr. Ahmednassir and the LSK decided on their own volition to subject their nominee to the vetting process. For the record also, Mrs. Mwangangi, the other LSK nominee, did not raise any objection to her vetting. The"
}