GET /api/v0.1/hansard/entries/82588/?format=api
HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept
{
"id": 82588,
"url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/82588/?format=api",
"text_counter": 411,
"type": "speech",
"speaker_name": "Ms. Karua",
"speaker_title": "",
"speaker": {
"id": 166,
"legal_name": "Martha Wangari Karua",
"slug": "martha-karua"
},
"content": "This very proposed amendment puts us at crossroads; whether people charged with responsibility will take responsibility or will continue with buck passing. When this matter occurred or when the sale happened in Tokyo, the Ministers were operating under the old Constitution. Section 22(3) of the Old Constitution gives Ministers semi- executive authority. It reads as follows: âWhere the Vice-President or any other Minister has been charged with responsibility for a department of Government he shall exercise general direction and control over that department and, subject to that direction and control, every department of Government shall be under the supervision of a Permanent Secretaryâ. What this means is that the Minister is the overall and the Permanent Secretary runs the day to day affairs. I have seen a trend in Government where Ministers are exempt from any responsibility. This will not augur well for the reforms we are carrying out. Mr. Speaker, Sir, these amendments again demonstrate the evil of a system where the Executive sits in Parliament. Any time there is a Motion examining the manner in which the Executive performs their duties, the Executive regroups to defeat that Motion. What is this report which is being amended saying? It simply says investigate and in the meantime, let both the Minister and the Permanent Secretary step aside to facilitate investigations. It does not condemn any of them; not yet. It leaves that to investigations, because Parliament realizes that it does not have the capability to do thorough investigations. Mr. Speaker, Sir, let us not stigmatize those who opt to step aside. Those who opt to step aside are people of honor, who want their names cleared and want to take responsibility for their jobs. But when you stigmatize stepping aside and make it look like a conviction, then how will we be able to even implement the high standards of integrity and ethics in Chapter 6 of our Constitution? I would urge Members of the Executive and those who are supporting this amendment to consider the impact of this amendment on the new dispensation. I would urge the Minister and the Permanent Secretary to gracefully accept to withdraw themselves from office while the investigations continue. We have seen investigations in various Ministries going on when the Ministers and their Permanent Secretaries are sitting pretty. Those investigations have yielded nothing. It is not right that top officers sacrifice their juniors and help to cover up for themselves. When investigations are done when they are away, if they are cleared, then we will know that genuinely, they have been cleared. But if you are cleared when you are sitting in there, we will believe it is a cover up. I oppose the amendments on these grounds, and suggest that the report should go as it is, and that when you take up responsibility for which you get paid, be ready to do the job, including taking overall responsibility, or what I would call political responsibility. It is different from criminal responsibility. Criminal responsibility can only be after a court of law convicts you. We are asking, as a House, in this Motion that the top officers take political responsibility; after investigations, then we will know whether there is any criminal responsibility or not. This is a hazard that goes with the job. The only insurance against this hazard is being very diligent. Remember, the Minister did say, and it is in this report, that the Government got value for money. That is a statement that requires that he be investigated to know whether there is anything more that he knew or not. It may be an innocent statement, but the moment you say there was value for money and the main thrust of this report is that the Government of Kenya and the people of Kenya have lost money, you need to step aside to let investigations continue. It does not mean Parliament has found you guilty. Let us open a new chapter. I oppose this amendment. It does not mean that Parliament has found you guilty. Let us open a new chapter."
}