Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 884713,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/884713/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 96,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Speaker",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "Commission to prescribe regulations for termination of appointment of officers of the Commission. The employment of such officers may also be governed by the relevant employment laws including the Employment Act on dismissal of employees. In this regard, the Committee’s recommendation relating to the removal of staff offends the provisions of Sections 10 and 35 of the IEBC Act and the relevant regulations in respect of other senior staff of the IEBC. The argument that Article 95(5) provides an avenue for the initiation of the removal of a member of a constitutional commission also patently fails with regard to the procedural safeguards afforded to State and public officers in the exercise of their public duties. As was noted in the ensuing debate on the point raised by the Leader of the Majority Party, the procedure set out under Article 251 of the Constitution grants the House a specific role to play in the process of the removal of a member of a constitutional commission or holder of an independent office. Under Article 251 (3), the House must determine whether a petition discloses any ground for removal before transmitting the petition to the President recommending the establishment of a tribunal to investigate the facts. The role of the House in the processing of a petition for removal, therefore, does not result in a final determination of the matter. All the specific methods of removal from office outlined in the Constitution grant a fair hearing to the affected State officers who are given prior notice of the case for their removal, a fair opportunity to answer it, and the opportunity to present their own case. This mirrors the rights to fair administrative action and fair hearing as set out in Articles 47 and 50 of the Constitution and the protection of public officers as outlined in Article 236 of the Constitution. It is, therefore, my considered opinion that the mandate of the House to review the conduct in office of a member of a constitutional commission or a holder of an independent office may only be done in accordance with Article 251 of the Constitution when it considers a petition filed for the removal of the affected State officer, specifically stating the grounds upon which it is proposed the holder of the office be removed. I commend the work of the Committee in their interrogation and presentation of grave allegations attributable to the commissioners and staff of the IEBC. However, the Committee has proceeded to utilise that information to propose the removal from office of the Commissioners and staff in an entirely untenable manner. I shall now address myself to the admissibility of the findings and recommendations in the Report tabled by the Public Accounts Committee. As you will recall, the point raised by the Leader of the Majority Party, though directed at one of the recommendations of the Report, in essence sought that I declare the findings and recommendations on pages 7 and 130 of the Report as inadmissible in their entirety. As I have noted in this Communication, a finding or recommendation would only be inadmissible if it addresses itself to a matter outside the mandate of the Committee or if it offends the provisions of Standing Order No.47(3). I have perused the Report of the Committee at the cited pages. From the perusal, I note that the second paragraph of General Recommendation No.3 accords with the concern raised by the Leader of the Majority Party that the Report recommends the removal of the members and staff of a constitutional commission in manner not contemplated by the Constitution. Apart from a portion of this recommendation and the section of the Report titled “Basis for Committee Recommendations for Vacation of Office” which, on the face of it, is intended to explain the thinking behind the recommendation, a cursory glance at the other recommendations of the Report does not reveal any relation to the concern raised by the Leader of the Majority Party and several other Members. I note that the General Recommendations and Section 4.0 of the Report 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."
}