Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 884721,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/884721/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 104,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Speaker",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "Hon. Members, it is good I allow more comments, particularly from Hon. Wandayi. Let me explain that the net effect is that the recommendation purporting to suggest that the Commissioners will vacate office upon adoption of this Report is expunged. The recommendation that staff could also vacate office is also expunged. Some of the text in so far as it suggests that they will be leaving office is also removed, but to the extent that the Committee has noted and made observations and findings touching on those members of staff is admissible. The findings and observations are admissible. Therefore, they can be used in implementation of the Report. That is the distinction. The method of removing officers serving in other offices is provided for by the respective statutes that established those offices. In this case, the IEBC Act of 2011 provides a mechanism of recruitment, discipline and dismissal of staff members. So, to the extent that this Committee has made quite some critical and serious findings and observations, whoever the implementing authority is can take the Report and act on it. I do not think the soul, as Hon. John Mbadi said, is gone. It is not. In any event, this House also must act constitutionally. The net effect of what I am saying in regard to the commissioners is that nobody here is saying that the Commissioners have not committed any crimes, but the Constitution provides for the mechanism for their removal from office. The proper mechanism would be to bring a petition. Were we to adopt the Report in this form in regard to the Commissioners - it says that they should vacate office - who would enforce that recommendation? There is nobody to enforce it. Even if you took it to whoever, they will ask if a tribunal has been set up in the first place, pursuant to a petition having been considered by the House. If we adopt it this way and then purport to bring a petition to the same House that has already condemned the Commissioners, is the person not going to suffer double jeopardy? The same minds that would have expressed themselves on this matter being expected to consider a petition, there is a danger of the person, whoever it shall be, going to court. You can almost see, for sure, the court asking why he is going to the same place. We are avoiding a situation whereby the House is also meant to act in vain. This ruling does not absolve anybody of any wrongdoing that they may have been found to have done. Therefore, there is still a lot of substance in the Report. I recommend Members to read it, not just 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."
}