Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 895943,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/895943/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 129,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Homa Bay Town, ODM",
    "speaker_title": "Hon. Peter Kaluma",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 1565,
        "legal_name": "George Peter Opondo Kaluma",
        "slug": "george-peter-opondo-kaluma"
    },
    "content": "In terms of the very first recommendation to the Report, I am deleting the first recommendation. All I am doing, honourable Members, is to redraw the recommendations to make them sharper. Members will note that I am not departing much from their recommendation. But we cannot be recommending to the House to do legislation. That is why I am saying straight away this House ought to review and determine whether it is right and it should remain or to repeal section 11(a) of the IEBC Act. Section 11(a) is a provision which has been misinterpreted to undermine the proper operations between a commission as a constitutional office and the secretariat. This is an interpretation and a provision being taken to literally all commissions across the country. This is the basis upon which an argument is being made that commissioners should only deal with matters policy and matters strategic directions or guidelines. Everything else to do with the commission is a matter for the secretariat. I want it to be remembered that the commissions created under the Constitution are executive commissions. In fact, within the contemplation of the Constitution, the commission is the chair and the members. Article 249(3) is very clear that it is those commissioners who then recruit the members of the secretariat or their staff. So, there is an interpretation being drawn and I saw it even in the context of this Committee. They are saying that a review of this law should be as envisioned in 11(a). I am merely sharpening it so that we can reconsider it and make the constitutional functions of the Commission clear as against the administrative functions of the Commission. Hon. Speaker, in the second proposed amendment, I am proposing removal of the words, “the commission did not do oversight”. I have read through the Report of this Committee and two things are clear from the Report of the Committee. One, this audit report by the Auditor General took place on the request of the commission. Unlike before, I found that interesting. It is also in the evidence of the former Chief Executive Officer of the commission and the commissioners that even before they invited the Auditor General to undertake this audit which is the subject matter of this analysis, they did their own internal audit. If that is true, and it is borne through the document and the Report, how can somebody or Parliament say the commissioners never undertook oversight yet, when they are seeking to do it, we are also saying that is the function of the secretariat? I am saying in the context of what is contained in the Report, this audit was initiated by the commissioners. So, they undertook their oversight. They requested for audit by the Auditor General and had done their audit before. It is confirmed that it was the basis upon which the CEO was being removed or suspended by the commissioners to permit internal audit. That is a body, in all fairness, which was undertaking oversight. That is not a body the Report can recommend did not duly undertake oversight. I believe and submit before fellow Members that to the extent that the Report says so, it is inconsistent with the observations; it is inconsistent with the findings in the Report. We need to realign it in the manner proposed. I urge all Members that we do not make these laws for the sake of it. When we pushed, in the 11th Parliament, for the new provisions in Section 974, Section 975 and Section 979 of the Companies Act, we were dealing with a situation which is becoming too rampant in this country. Most of the big contracts are being done by foreign companies. This is why we were saying a time will come when, even in cases of corruption, you will want to pursue these companies and you will not get them. That is why we were saying do not just tell us you are an international company, be registered there so that we can know you are a legal entity properly existing and doing business with Kenyans. 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."
}