Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 805082,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/805082/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 147,
    "type": "other",
    "speaker_name": "",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "Clause 9 is very important. It gives the protection from personal liability so that this person is actually acting in their capacity as a public officer and not an individual and that is also very key. Clause 10 states that the County Attorney shall have the status and rank of a member of the county Executive committee. I think some sort of rationale needs to be given for that. Arbitrarily deciding that the CEC and the County Attorney are at the same level is not right. At Committee stage, we need to justify why the County Attorney should be at par with a member of the CEC.If they are the same rank, what level of authority does this person have over the CECs? Clause 11 states that the County Attorney, County Solicitor and County Legal Counsel shall not engage in any other official gainful employment. That is also very standard. Clause 12 states that the County Attorney may resign from office, that is wise. There is a possibility that he can refuse to resign, then what will the county do? I think that is addressed by Clause 13 and therefore, gives the governor power to remove him from office. It reads: “The Governor may with approval of the county assembly---“So, the Governor and the county assembly can trigger a process for the resignation. This is a good clause because then we do not have an over-confident County Attorney who just decides to refuse to leave office even when he is dysfunctional within that particular county. Clause 16 is a mis-representation. The small title on the side gives the title as engagement of consultant. It should be non-engagement of consultant. It says: “A department or public entity established within a county executive shall not engage the services of a consultant to render any legal services relating to the functions. It is actually disregarding and discouraging the engagement of the consultant. But the side title reads “engagement”. I would suggest that it reads “non-engagement” for it to flow. Part IV of the Bill is critical because it gives the various details for the other categories apart from the County Attorney, the Solicitor, the County Legal Counsel and the other workers in terms of the provisions of what is expected. One thing in the Miscellaneous provisions is the Penalty Clause. If an officer discloses any information, the punishment is a fine of up to Kshs200,000 and less than two years imprisonment. I think the fine of Kshs200,000 is low in terms of penalty. It is very easy for somebody to raise that amount and give information that is very key and critical and create disharmony within the county. I think that clause needs to be re-looked at. I know in various legislations especially where there is a provision for imprisonment, people take it more seriously. So, it should be “a fine and imprisonment”, then we will get people to adhere more easily. Mr. Temporary Speaker, Sir, my worry is with Clause 28. As I was reading this Bill, what came to my mind was how will this office be funded? In Clause 28(a) it says “monies that may be” I think there we are really getting into a very dangerous area because we are saying “money that may”. It is a guesswork that money may be allocated by the county assembly for the purpose of the office. I think it needs to be very precise to read “money that shall be allocated from the county assembly”. This Bill will collapse if the interpretation of that clause is given to 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."
}