Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 783036,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/783036/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 498,
    "type": "other",
    "speaker_name": "",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "knew what task they had at hand. They knew the minimum qualifications that candidates who were being invited for interview had to meet. If you go to page 15 of the Report - I wish I could have said this when the Senator for Makueni County was here – it says that the Committee, when developing the criteria for shortlisting, was careful to ensure that the candidates complied with the provisions of the Constitution and the Act. Then, if you go to page 16 of the Report, they have clearly stated that the Committee unanimously agreed that they develop criteria for shortlisting candidates. Under Paragraph 35, one of the criteria that was developed by the Committee, was to ascertain whether a candidate had knowledge and, at least, 10 years’ experience in those areas that the Act has set out. That includes public management, human resource and others. It is through that criterion that the Committee was able to shortlist 42 candidates. So, the honourable Senator for Makueni who has seconded this report cannot come to the House to tell us that in their final recommendation, they may have considered issues of ten years’ experience because that was a criterion that was before the Committee before they shortlisted the candidates. I have perused the report which is before the House and noticed that they recommend Margaret Sawe and Professor Joseph Naituli to be appointed. When you go to page 21 of the report, the person rated as having scored the highest marks got 78 per cent and there were 80 candidates. This must be somebody who served in this House because the title there is Senator. I am at a loss to understand why the Committee left out a person who scored the highest marks and rated as number one. The person went through the rigorous criterion that was set by the Committee but his name was left out in favour of somebody who was rated number two. I am speaking as somebody who has been a victim of unfair practices when picking candidates who have undergone rigorous interview process. In 2011, I applied to be the Chair of the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC). I went through an interview and I was rated the top candidate but the people who were tasked with picking suitable candidates for that position settled for somebody who was number three. That is unfair. When I saw that the Committee left out candidate number one and settled for number two, I felt that we are not being fair to people who offer themselves to occupy public positions, not because of whom they know but because they meet the minimum requirements, having been submitted to an interview and emerging top. I want to go on record that unless the Committee gives a very convincing reason, this House should consider sending this report back to the Committee to explain to us why the person who emerged number one has been left out. I am reading some mischief in this report. I have gone through it from page one to the last page and the Curriculum Vitae (CV) of the person who was number one has not been annexed so that this House can also interrogate it. Looking at the CV of the candidate, are we convinced by the report of the Committee that he does not have the ten years’ experience? This House is not just here to receive reports and endorse them. We are here to ensure that reports that come to the House are interrogated and that there is fairness and the Constitution has been followed. 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."
}