Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 839232,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/839232/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 270,
    "type": "other",
    "speaker_name": "",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "these state officers. Again, it is guided by Article 10 with regard to the national values and principles of national governance. That is all good. The other aspects are covered by Article 33; as Sen. Wako has mentioned, all the proceedings under the Act being open to the public so as to constitute enough public participation. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, the President was elected through universal suffrage by the people. At what point do they have a say in his removal? At what point do the people of the county perhaps have a say in the removal of a governor? We are the representatives of the people and we act on their behalf. However, there is a very good reason why the Public Participation Bill is such an important part of our Constitution. I may be guided because I am not a lawyer. Article 33 states: “All proceedings under this Act should be open to the public unless in exceptional circumstances where the person presiding over the proceedings has determined that there are justifiable reasons for the exclusion of the public.” I would request the drafters of this Bill in attempt to provide good framework, actualize and give effect to the articles on Impeachment within our own Constitution to ensure that as much as we, legislators, have the power to impeach, perhaps the people should also have a say within this process as we go along. I know the legal arm has been given a provision as well articulated by Sen. Wako under Article 33 of the Constitution, but I did not see the public participation aspect coming out. As proponents of public participation within the Senate, this House should also make sure that the legislation it makes provides that as well. In terms of strengthening institutions, giving credence and effect to our Constitution, I support the Bill. Again, the Legislative Arm should always provide the citizens options wherever there is a challenge of whatever nature. This Bill provides the same for removal of certain key office holders. I am sure some of the shortcomings require to be looked into. I think the laws have pointed out with regard to ensuring that there is proper definition of some of the provisions, what constitutes gross violations, violation of national and international laws. Due to time constraint, I will not go into that. The known emphasis on public participation was an interesting one and I thought it should be looked into. I felt that on something so important such as removing a President or a governor of a county, then perhaps those timelines may need to be re- looked at because we do not want to impose on ourselves certain prescriptive timeliness which become very hard for this Senate or the National Assembly, to achieve. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, with regard to oversight, the reason I support this Bill is that it should start by us especially clarifying the roles, responsibilities, what is to be measured and the process that is going to be followed for this House to hold our executive both at the national and county levels accountable. In as far as our role under Article 96 of oversight and Article 6 of legislation are concerned, then this Bill really does justice to those two mandates given to us by the Constitution. I know there are certain provisions that read exactly like the Constitution and other laws. We should just break it down a little more by providing definition of some of The electronic version of the Senate Hansard Report is for information purposes"
}