Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 944499,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/944499/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 25,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Speaker",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "Hon. Members, in the case of our legislative setup, the eventual aim of the House is to have responses to Questions made by competent, legitimate and authorised persons in an accurate, timely and authoritative manner so as to assist the House to attempt to resolve issues of concern to the people and discharge its oversight role over the Executive, pursuant to Articles 95 and 153(3) of the Constitution. In this regard, it ought not to be lost that the ‘Cabinet Secretary’ is an office rather than a person. Hence, it is arguable that an authorised representative of the Cabinet Secretaries (CSs) may, acting on delegated powers, respond to a matter before a Committee, as long as he or she takes full responsibility for the answers and undertakings given by the Executive to the committee of the House. This is in tandem with the established practice whereby some Questions are responded to through oral replies by the responsible CS appearing in person, some through a written reply signed by the responsible CS and submitted to the committee. Other questions are responded to through oral submissions made by representatives of CSs, who presents the responses signed by the responsible Cabinet Secretary. Hon. Members, the practice I have just mentioned is a product of this House. Members will note that even though the current text of Standing Orders 42A to 42F envisage a CSs as the person to whom all Questions are addressed and from whom all responses are expected, a review of the Hansard Report during consideration of the amendments to the Standing Orders to re- introduce Questions suggests that Members contended with the fact that, on some occasions, Reponses to Questions may be made by persons other than CSs. While moving the Second Report of the Procedure and House rules Committee on the said amendments, the Deputy Speaker, Hon. Moses Cheboi said: “I urge the House to adopt these amendments as contained in the Second Report of the Procedure and House Rules Committee. It is my considered opinion that in operationalising these amendments, the House and its committees will need to strike a fair balance with regard to appearance in person of CSs to answer questions in committees. I understand that CSs and Principal Secretaries (PSs) can be very busy. Between PS and CS, the CS can respond to questions. Anybody who is above the rank of PS can appear to answer questions. For example, if the Chief Administrative Secretaries (CASs) are above the rank of PS, they can respond to questions.” The Deputy Speaker’s position was supported by the Majority Party Whip, the Hon. Benjamin Washiali who, while contributing to the debate, stated as follows: “To me, the question of CSs being too busy to attend to questions is neither here nor there because, with the introduction of the CASs, when CSs are busy dealing with other issues of development, the CASs can stand in for them so that the aspect of answering questions is not deferred.” Hon. Members, despite this particular observation not being included in the text of the Standing Orders, it currently guides the procedure of committees with regard to the consideration of Questions. Further, from the Report of the Committee and the debate that ensued in the House during the adoption of Standing Order No.42 (a)(b)(c)(d)(e) and (f), there is no doubt that the"
}