Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 844187,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/844187/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 104,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Speaker",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "(a) The recommendations of the Special Audit Report by the Public Accounts Committee were rejected by the House during the Third Session on 3rd November 2004, and not during the Fourth Session; (b) the rejection of the PAC Report on the Special Audit in its totality during the Third Session was, as far as I can establish, the first time this has ever happened in the history of this House. Ordinarily, such reports have been adopted either in whole or as amended; (c) this is the first time that the tabling of a Paper containing the report of PAC has ever been challenged in this House; and, (d) because of the unprecedented action on the part of the House, this is also the first time PAC has, on its own Motion, and in conjunction with the Controller and Auditor-General, revisited an issue on receipt of new evidence. This new evidence was not presented to the Committee when it was still on the issue. I may hasten to add here that the new evidence came to the attention of the Committee in a very public manner in the form of what has since been dubbed \"The Githongo Dossier.\" Hon. Members, on account of the aforementioned observations, the then Speaker Kaparo proceeded to rule that, on the necessity to rescind the decision of the House on the First Report of PAC, that: “The Report of the Special Audit was resolved in the negative on 3rd November, 2004 and not during the Fifth Session. The Fifth Session is now. This is a new session. Clearly, the Hon. Assistant Minister did not consider the provisions of Standing Order No.42 when he raised his objection. In light of the provisions of Standing Order No.42, that argument fails.” Consequently, the Speaker did not grant leave to rescind the previous decision as the said decision had been carried in a different session. Therefore, Standing Order 42 did not bind its re- introduction to the House. Hon. Members, the question one would ask is: What action did the Speaker take thereafter? The argument for rescission having failed, the Speaker did observe that PAC had embarked on a fresh inquiry, notwithstanding the rejection of its earlier report on the basis of emergence of new evidence in the public domain contained in the so called “Githongo Dossier.” He went ahead and ruled that: “…new evidence emerged in public domain in the said \"Githongo Dossier\" and the Committee somehow seized the opportunity and sought to receive and did receive the new evidence… It is for this greater public interest… that I am inclined to admit this Report for consideration by this House.” Clearly, the Speaker allowed tabling and subsequent consideration of the Report for reconsideration by the House on the basis of new evidence and not to merely accord the House a second chance to review its decision on a Report with similar contents. Hon. Members, let me now relate the analogies I have drawn to the questions raised by Hon. Anthony Oluoch, MP, with regard to the application of Standing Order 49 and wish to provide the following guidance: 1. On the first question as to whether the usage of the terms “Question” and “Motion” as used in Standing Order Nos.49(1) and (2) has same meaning in the terms of the Standing Orders, indeed, the two are used interchangeably. The understanding is that any The electronic version of the Official Hansard Report is for information purposesonly. A certified version of this Report can be obtained from the Hansard Editor."
}