Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 950326,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/950326/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 217,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Rarieda, ODM",
    "speaker_title": "Hon. (Dr.) Otiende Amollo",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 13465,
        "legal_name": "Paul Otiende Amollo",
        "slug": "paul-otiende-amollo"
    },
    "content": "and a constitutional body which is what the EACC is now. We abandoned that constitutional body because we decided it was not working. We have now focused the war on corruption through the Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DCI), which is not even constitutional or statutory. We are in this dilemma of having a whole regime of anti-corruption laws and bodies, but going back to where we started from of traditionally enforcing anti-corruption laws through the police. Even those who we have appointed to the EACC, we have conceptually been unclear on their role. Initially, they were full-time, and then they were made part-time and are now full- time again. We have been unclear on the number of commissioners. Should they be seven, nine or three? We are unsure of the role of the Chief Executive Officer (CEO). Is it the chairman who controls the body or the CEO? We have conceptual confusion around that area. I suggest that we focus on eradicating corruption at two levels. First, is at the stage of elections. As long as the system of elections we have invites the usage of a lot of money, it will always invite corruption on the part of those who are elected. Every election cycle is a cycle of usage of lots of money. We must examine that system that requires you to have a lot of money in order to be elected. Secondly, I suggest that the reduction of corruption will not depend on appointed officers or how severe the sentences are in the books. It must depend on the intolerance of corruption by the appointing authority. When the President has a whiff that any Cabinet Secretary, Principal Secretary or high-ranking official who is appointed through his office is corrupt, he does not need to wait for the court to convict that person to remove them from office. He has the ability to remove them for any or no reason. As long as we have situations where we are waiting for people to be taken to court and convicted before they can be removed from office, we will only have appointed officers who become smarter but remain corrupt. I submit that we do not need to change the law in order not to tolerate corruption. This is not a matter of preaching about how much you abhor corruption. This is a matter of law. As a matter of law, this Bill would be unconstitutional."
}