Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 884886,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/884886/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 269,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Kipipiri, JP",
    "speaker_title": "Hon. Amos Kimunya",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 174,
        "legal_name": "Amos Muhinga Kimunya",
        "slug": "amos-kimunya"
    },
    "content": " Thank you, Hon. Temporary Deputy Speaker. I want to recognise the efforts that have been put here by the Senate but, unfortunately, it seems like running on a treadmill. That is putting a lot of effort with no movement. I join my colleagues in finding that most of these amendments are superfluous, unnecessary and should be rejected in totality. I want to just look at some of the things. When in Clause 7 they say that they want to include the CoG, already, we had provided for the Intergovernmental Relations Technical Committee within the Bill. But now they want to bring in CoG. The last time I checked, I do not believe that CoG was formed with the mandate of sitting on boards and providing advice on standards of roads, which is what they are attempting to do in Clause 9. That, when the CS is deciding on the standards of roads, he or she should consult the CoG. When does CoG become road engineers to determine road standards? When you look at all the other amendments that they are introducing in Clauses 17, 20, bringing in LSK, you wonder what the legal issues are to do with roads. They have not even thought about the numbers. They say two people nominated by the following two institutions, but then they say add another institution. Now you have two people nominated by three institutions. How do we even start figuring out which of the two we will take and which one to leave out? Soon, we will also be asking accountants and architects and all these different people to join. In Clause 44, when you want to get wayleave and sort out what happens, that you need to consult the relevant county government. That already happens anyway as a matter of planning and the approvals. When you put it in law, we are shooting ourselves in the foot. There are several issues. You need to look at them in the context in which the Senate may be introducing them. The way I look at it is that we have an idle House that is looking for relevance. When the Senate was set up in 2010, it was very clear its mandate was to represent the interest of counties. Senators do not represent people. They represent counties. Members of the National Assembly represent the people and issues to do with the people. When we see Senators come to constituencies and they want to say: I am the one who has done this road. We went to the Senate and the President and we were given a road, it is sad. They have no way of showing it because the CRC is controlled by the Members of the National Assembly. So, they are trying to sneak in a way of knowing what we are doing so that when they are out there, they can go and get some false mileage that they are the ones doing the roads and not the Member of the National Assembly. It is also very clear that some of the Senators want to become governors. Much as the Member for Mwingi has declared, a number of those Senators are looking for a situation where they are trying to create for themselves a future through meddling in the roads governance. I will not be long. I just want to make sure that it is put on record that I am one of the people who are very dissatisfied with the workings of the Senate and the meddling they are doing with the work of the national government. At an appropriate time, we will need to revisit whether we actually need the Senate or not, and if we need it, what role we should give it so that we do not end up 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."
}