Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 896020,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/896020/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 206,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Ruaraka, ODM",
    "speaker_title": "Hon. T.J. Kajwang’",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 2712,
        "legal_name": "Tom Joseph Kajwang'",
        "slug": "kajwang-tom-joseph-francis"
    },
    "content": " Hon. Temporary Deputy Speaker, thank you for allowing me to put in very quick remarks on this because I feel compelled. First of all, I take issue with the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee. It is correct when he says that PAC does not have a common stand on this. If the Chair knew that this was a controversial issue, courtesy would dictate that he speaks last. If the Chair of PAC comes to the plenary with the opinion of a clerk or a legal officer to influence the minds of the Members, he should know the limits of legal officers and clerks. They only advise committees. That is it! The Committee has an opportunity to make its own decision. Once it has made its decision, it becomes the official decision. Some lawyer, sitting in some room somewhere, from whichever school cannot purport to make a decision for the plenary. We are the National Assembly and not some lawyer somewhere. That needs to be understood. Having understood that, this issue is very controversial. Although the Chair said it was discussed by the PAC, you do not see it in the body of the Report. It means that it is a matter which needs to be investigated. Having taken that position, I support Hon. Kaluma. I am a ranking Member of that Committee and Hon. Kaluma is only trying to clean up what we may, as a Committee, have left out by oversight. First of all, Section 11 is a live issue both in the Report and in the recommendations of the Committee. Hon. Kaluma is a man of words. He has chosen to add a few sentences more than what we gave in the Report to make it clear that we should consider repealing. Those are beautiful words. This is what we are called upon to do by this House - to review legislation and see if we can reconcile Section 11(a) with the Constitution which makes the Commission independent and executive. It is the problem we had with the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC). Until we resolved it in the plenary, it was a big problem. It is now here with us. This is why there is a rift between the Chiloba team and the other team of the Commission. We must reconcile. What do we think as Parliament? Should the Commission give decisions on these issues or should it be the secretariat? Otherwise, you set them up for failure. They will fight eternally. There is also the issue of Morpho. Is it Suffering or SAFRAN? These people change their names like chameleons. Hon. Kaluma is not, for a moment, saying that we make a decision on whether international companies will bid for tenders or not. He is simply saying that the Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DCI) and the agencies concerned should investigate if at all there was a crime which was committed. That is their mandate. They may investigate it and conclude that no crime was committed or a court can express its view and say that Sections 974 or 975 should be interpreted otherwise. However, to come to the plenary and assume to interpret the Constitution and say that this is what should happen is not our mandate. Hon. Kaluma is not asking for anything which cannot be enforced. He is simply asking that the DCI and the agencies concerned to investigate if a crime was committed. Section 975 was done in the 11th Parliament. I was in the Departmental Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs and we did it in open daylight. We were very conscious of what we were doing. It came before the plenary. We debated and passed it. Today, somebody says that that was not the intention. You can only get the intention of a piece of legislation by reading the law. The intention of the law is what it says. To bring in your opinion and decide that there is a better way of interpreting what is clear in the script is not a principle of understanding legislation. We have to decide whether we are a country that is led by law or by the jungle. If a law is clear, let us follow it. If the law presents challenges, bring it to the Assembly and we amend it suitably. Until it is amended, that is the law. We should be comfortable unless it does 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."
}