GET /api/v0.1/hansard/entries/702159/?format=api
HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept
{
"id": 702159,
"url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/702159/?format=api",
"text_counter": 119,
"type": "speech",
"speaker_name": "Hon. (Ms.) Kanyua",
"speaker_title": "",
"speaker": {
"id": 981,
"legal_name": "Priscilla Nyokabi Kanyua",
"slug": "priscilla-nyokabi-kanyua"
},
"content": "On semi-autonomous complaints mechanisms, she felt that that is a matter for the House to deal with. An interesting issue arose as to the tenure of the DCJ. The nominee having been born in 1958, has 12 years to serve in the Judiciary. She was of the view that there is no tenure for the DCJ. On this matter, the Committee had an unpleasant experience with the former DCJ. When Justice Rawal appeared before the Committee, she confirmed that she would retire at 70 years, but when she attained the age of 70 years, instead of going home, she went to court. So, we put the question directly to this nominee that: “At the age of 70 years, will you leave the Judiciary?” She confirmed that the day she hits 70 years, she would leave the Judiciary, but in the meantime, the Committee is completely convinced that the DCJ should serve for a term of 10 years and not a day more. The CJ has a term of 10 years. If he has a term of 10 years, there would be no reason for the DCJ to serve a longer period than the CJ even though the clear text of the law reflects the CJ and not the DCJ. When the DCJ assumes office, she would need to retire from that position at the expiry of 10 years. She could choose to continue in the Judiciary but on the position of the DCJ, the Committee is clear that the period is 10 years. The Committee will be bringing the necessary amendments to the law to make sure that, that position is respected. 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"
}