GET /api/v0.1/hansard/entries/994489/?format=api
HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept

{
    "id": 994489,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/994489/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 125,
    "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": " Thank you, Hon. Speaker. I rise under Standing Order 1(1) on a procedural question of which I invite and seek your direction. This is the question of the procedure for removal of a Member of the Parliamentary Service Commission (PSC), noting that this is something that touches on the Constitution, the Parliamentary Service Act and the Standing Orders. Hon. Speaker, I recall your Communication that you made on the 22nd February, 2018, during the debate on the names of the Members of the PSC. I wish also to draw your attention to a meeting that was held in this Chamber by the NASA Coalition on 28th May last month, which was attended by 124 Members either in person or by proxy. Those Members as members of a coalition reached a unanimous decision and resolved to effect certain changes on the composition of the PSC. I seek your guidance because it is important to have it before we take any action and to avoid either acting in vain, unnecessary contestation or unnecessary interpretation of the relevant provisions. We are aware, and no one can doubt it, that the PSC is a constitutional commission under Article 248. That invites the interpretation, quite arguable, that any question of removal of a member of a commission must be under Article 251 of the Constitution as read with Standing Order 230. That argument can be persuasive and has been made by some Members of this House. First, it is also to be noted that Article 248 of the Constitution which lists the constitutional commissions and requirements is very express and states: “Except to the extent that this Constitution provides otherwise”. Therefore, the question is, if there is any other part of the Constitution that provides different from what Article 251 does and the answer appears to be yes. That is Article 127 of the Constitution. Hon. Speaker, while Article 251 of the Constitution talks of removal from office, Article 127 of the Constitution talks of vacation of office. A close examination of Article 127 reveals something that is interesting and is not often noted. First of all, under Article 127(2)(c) in terms of composition in Parliament, states: “(c) seven members appointed by Parliament from among its members of whom…” The process we have voluntarily adopted here usually includes some form of election, but the word used in the Constitution is “appointed”. This word is very important because when you come to Article 127(4)(b) of the Constitution, it states: “(4) A member of the Commission shall vacate office— (b) if the person is an appointed member, on revocation of the person’s appointment by Parliament”. There are three catch phrases. First, it uses the word “appointed” similar to the word used when they are being elected. Second, it also says on revocation. So, it is a different consideration from removal in Article 215 of the Constitution. Thirdly, it says revocation of that appointment by Parliament. This means that removal will not be done by one House, but both Houses."
}