Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 944491,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/944491/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 17,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Speaker",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "(i) Whether accountability of the Executive to the National Assembly with regard to responding to any questions before a committee of the House in terms of Article 153(3) of the Constitution and Part IXA of the Standing Orders is an exclusive function of Cabinet Secretaries or may be delegated to Chief Administrative Secretaries or other officials in line ministries; and, (ii) whether the establishment of the offices of Chief Administrative Secretaries and subsequent appointment of holders of those offices offend the Constitution or in any way affects the transaction of business of the House in our committees. Before I guide the House on those questions, it is important to appreciate that these questions are arising in a phase of governance different from which preceded the promulgation of the Constitution of Kenya on 27th August 2010. As you may be aware, the constitutional dispensation birthed in 2010 was a shift in the architecture of governance and the nature of the operations of the Legislature and its relationship with the other two arms of Government. This shift especially affected the composition and relationship between the Legislature and the Executive, as for the first time in the country’s history, no Member of the Executive partakes in the affairs of either House of Parliament through membership to Parliament. As the “Father of the House”, Hon. Jimmy Angwenyi, who was also a Member of the 8th and 9th Parliaments, and other ranking Members of this House who served in the 10th and preceding Parliaments would attest, the presence of the Executive in the Legislature was a unique hallmark of accountability in Parliaments preceding the promulgation of the new Constitution. Article 95 (2) of the current Constitution provides: “The National Assembly deliberates on and resolves issues of concern to the people.” Under this Article, the House is mandated to hold the Executive to account. Among other avenues, this oversight role ordinarily relies on questions raised by Members, both in their individual and representative capacities, as well as on the basis of matters arising from undertakings and assurances made by the Executive to the House. Across Parliaments, Parliamentary Questions enable Parliament to access relevant, timely and actionable answers or information from the Executive to enable it to effectively discharge its mandate. Question Time under the previous dispensation was an active process on the Floor of the House, where both the questioners and the responsible ministers were present in the House and supplementary questions could be raised and either be answered promptly or appropriate assurances and undertakings made during that sitting. Question Time was not only popular to Members but also to the general citizenry, who could watch and hear as their representatives put their Government to task over issues of concern to them and receive prompt pertinent responses and undertakings on the record. This changed at the commencement of the 11th Parliament, the first under the new constitutional dispensation. The introduction of a presidential system of governance in which members of the Cabinet are no longer Members of Parliament resulted into the absence of the representatives of the Executive in the Houses of Parliament, and, therefore, effectively crippling the idea behind Question Time. As a result, various attempts to revitalise Question Time under the new constitutional dispensation were made by the 11th and this 12th Parliaments, culminating in the insertion of Part IX of the National Assembly Standing Orders relating to Questions. Those of you who served in"
}