Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 774112,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/774112/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 243,
    "type": "other",
    "speaker_name": "",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "court. Yet, some of the ills that are being perpetrated in society right now, people get away with because of how we draft our laws. There is something that I have picked up. It is a general phrase that we use many times when we pass laws in this Parliament. Amongst the qualifications that have been put for the Chief Executive Officer for this Authority is that: “They should hold relevant academic and professional qualifications.” This is a generic phrase that we use for almost every other board. What is relevant? If you have a degree, for example, in botany, somebody can argue before a court of law and say he is qualified, because “relevant” means that he is able to read and write. I think we are being intellectually lazy as legislatures if we allow such language to pass. We should get down to the details and state the academic qualifications that are needed for an individual who is about to head an institution that shall be charged with the responsibility of carrying out irrigation programmes in our country. There is need for better language. That particular phrase should be redrafted. Otherwise, if you leave it that way, we are opening room for people to appoint every person that is available out there. Water studies is a very rare skill that not many people have information on or had the opportunity to study it. Therefore, I think that is something we need to consider and perhaps see a better way of drafting that particular legislation. There are other ambiguities that I have picked out of this piece of legislation. It says that the Chief Executive Officer shall hold office for a term of three years and is eligible for reappointment for a further term of three years. My understanding is that if you are eligible to be reappointed for a further term of three years, the very specific nature of that communication is that it does not hold the person being reappointed from being reappointed for another term even after having done six years. The language used in this Bill should be specific; that after being appointed for a further term of three years, you do not qualify to be appointed again. I am not a fan of people being appointed into office then they buy time there and perhaps, stay for more than two terms. As an individual, there is only so much that you can do. After a certain period of stay in a particular office, you cease to become useful. That is what people meant when they came up with phrases like, so and so has over- stayed their usefulness in a certain position. Therefore, the language used there is not tight enough. Somebody may exploit it and say, so long as it says another term of three years, it can also be another term after the second term. We need to consider such things. If we are talking about things like unemployment and how we shall address it; how will our young people in this country get the opportunity to serve this nation, if people who have risen through the ranks and get to the level of being Chief Executive Officers are being appointed for more than six years? There is nobody who has monopoly of knowledge, especially for such an important avenue as this. A term of six years should be enough to be appreciated for having served your country. Please move on and do other things. One thing that I must really laud the drafters of this piece of legislation is that this is about responsibilities of the county governments as per this regulation; that each The electronic version of the Senate Hansard Report is for information purposes only. A certified version of this Report can be obtained from the Hansard Editor, Senate"
}