Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 815146,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/815146/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 117,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Speaker",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "Hon. Members, for reasons that are in Standing Order No. 86, I think I will not allow debate on that particular point. Hon. Kaluma has raised serious issues and they are true. But, of course, because of Standing Order No. 86, it will be inappropriate for me to allow further debate. Hon. Kaluma consider the provisions of the Public Appointment Parliamentary Approval Act because the name(s) come to the House just like the ones I have just referred a while ago to the relevant committees. The Committees are time bound within a period to bring their reports. The Public Appointments Parliamentary Approval Act is also clear that if within the timeframe given the House has not expressed itself one way or the other, the nominee would be deemed to have been duly appointed. That is why I am saying that what the Hon. Kaluma has raised is a serious matter. I imagine that the committee was in those kinds of difficulties. Yes, they are aware of certain facts. I do not want to delve in to those facts. If the House does not bring a Report either approving or recommending disapproval, the nominee stands appointed. I imagine that the committee must have been grappling with those issues because the House was not going to proceed without the Report of the committee and if the committee just sat on the name, then the nominee would be appointed. I think this is a matter that, perhaps, we need to rethink through. We also look at the necessity to look at what exactly is contemplated in Section 62 which deals with serving State officers. Is there a corresponding provision about a person proposed to be appointed into a State office? Perhaps Hon. Kaluma, since it is within our power to make provisions relating to those things, save of course for the presumption of innocence which everybody seems to want to run to, the issue you have raised is of great moment because you have a nominee and the Statute provide that within a given period, you must express yourself one way or the other regarding the nominee on their suitability or otherwise. I think it is within us as a House, charged with the responsibility of making legislation as ably demonstrated by Hon. Junet earlier, when he was dealing with the other matter, when he said that you make but you do not participate. Because of the issues you have raised begin looking at Section 62 especially with regard to situations such as the current one which you have just described. I know that you are not alone in making that observation. There have been a lot of concerns raised by many Kenyans. I am sure what the Committee is doing is guided by Article 124 of the Constitution which states that: When a House of Parliament considers any appointment for which its approval is required under this Constitution or an Act of Parliament— (a) The appointment shall be considered by a committee of the relevant House; (b) The committee’s recommendation shall be tabled in the House for approval; and, (c) The proceedings of the committee and the House shall be open to the public. So, even as much as we look at Section 62 of the EACC Act, we will obviously be required to look at our own Standing Orders alongside the Public Appointments (Parliamentary Approval) Act when we have those kinds of issues. We should consider all three: both the Acts and our own Standing Orders regarding a situation such as this one, which has not arisen in the past, save for what the House did in 2013. I would advise Members to look at what indeed happened in that particular matter of 2013. What were the recommendations of the committee? Of course, the committee did not recommend appointment, it is the House, you Members here on the Floor - fortunately, as you know, under Article 122, I do not have a vote - who moved The electronic version of the Official Hansard Report is for information purposes only. Acertified version of this Report can be obtained from the Hansard Editor."
}