Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 717803,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/717803/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 114,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. A.B. Duale",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 15,
        "legal_name": "Aden Bare Duale",
        "slug": "aden-duale"
    },
    "content": "As the House approves this officer, I have noted in your Communication that one of the Bills that have elapsed is the Parliamentary Service Commission Bill, 2015. I hope it will be published again soonest for consideration. When it is published, I will bring am amendment. We must have tenure of office for the Clerks of Parliament. It cannot be open ended. The way we have an amendment Bill dealing with the Office of the Attorney-General, every officer must have some tenure. Even CEOs of commission have tenure of office. Imagine if Mr. Sialai was 40 years old today and will be in this House as the Clerk for the next 20 years until he gets to 60 years retirement age. Having a Clerk serving for 20 years is a long period. Therefore, when the Parliamentary Service Commission (Amendment) Bill will be brought, whether you are 40 or 50 years, if Members of Parliamentary Service Commission feel that you are not up to the task, there must be a procedure for your removal. You cannot give senior positions that room. There are people who are 40, 45 or 50 years and feel that the only time they will leave that office is when they reach the retirement age of 60 years. That Bill will be very crucial. I have looked at the age of Mr. Sialai. He has about four-and-half years to reach retirement age. So, I am not against him. But in future, we cannot have a Clerk employed at 40 years and the only time he can leave is when he reaches the retirement age of 60 years. That, I think, is not procedural."
}