Ababu Namwamba

All parliamentary appearances

Entries 1121 to 1130 of 1948.

• 5 Jun 2012 in National Assembly: Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, while requesting for the Ministerial Statement, I did seek the indulgence of the Chair to just add the detail that I submitted this request online. I submitted this request in the middle of the Bunyala District Education Day in my Budalang’i Constituency after feeling the pressure and the cry, which was so genuine; from the heads of schools, who expect a very firm commitment from the Government as soon as yesterday. view
• 5 Jun 2012 in National Assembly: The Assistant Minister must also be aware that the KNUT has already given notice of a looming industrial action over this matter by Thursday. So, if this matter is not resolved by tomorrow, we could be facing industrial action besides children being sent home and schools closing down. This matter is not new. It is a matter that the Ministry is well familiar with. Since this matter is not new; it is not a fresh matter and it is a matter that the Ministry is well familiar with, could the Assistant Minister indulge this House with a response tomorrow? It ... view
• 22 May 2012 in National Assembly: Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, matters of presidential candidates are weighty and they can take your attention from the business of the House. When you have two Presidential contenders sitting side by side, we can only understand. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise on a point of order to raise a question of procedure, that I believe does touch on the very character of the Report that the Chair of the House Committee has moved so eloquently and with so much conviction. I rise under Standing Order No.47(3)(b) which reads: “If the Speaker is of the opinion that any proposed Motion ... view
• 22 May 2012 in National Assembly: , as we say in law, by going beyond the list of names submitted to this House through the Clerk of the House from the Office of his Excellency the President vide a letter dated 7th March, 2012. I raised that matter specifically with regard to an admission by the Committee that it did decide to invite all persons that the panel had an opportunity to interview during the vetting process. Allow me without belabouring the point to refer you to page 5 of the Report of the Committee that says:- “Mr. Speaker, Sir, having considered the memorandum from the ... view
• 22 May 2012 in National Assembly: Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, the law then goes ahead to define the mandate of the National Assembly in Section 66. It says:- “The National Assembly shall within 21days of the day that it next seats after receipt of the names of the applicants under Sub-Section 5 vet and consider all the applicants and may approve or reject any or all of them.” This then raises my first question. The Committee says in its own words on page five of the Report:- “The Committee in its 27th sitting held on Wednesday, 2nd May, 2012 resolved to invite all the persons shortlisted ... view
• 22 May 2012 in National Assembly: “The responsibility of the National Assembly is to vet and consider the applicants and may approve or reject any of them”. By undertaking to interrogate the process by which the panel conducted its affairs, I ask the question; whether, in fact, the committee did not engage in re-interview or whether the committee did not engage in what amounts to an audit of the work of the panel and even served as an appellate tribunal for the candidate that had been interviewed by the committee. view
• 22 May 2012 in National Assembly: Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, in fact, I want to state that in my humble interpretation of the law, to vet is not the same thing as to interview. The responsibility to interview in law is handed to the panel. Parliament is given the responsibility to vet and I submit that it would be a violation of the law for Parliament to attempt to re-interview candidates already interviewed by the panel. view
• 22 May 2012 in National Assembly: My final question is that the committee has proceeded to make a very curious recommendation. When you look at the list of recommendations by the committee on page 22, among the recommendations that it makes and I quote recommendation No.2:- “His Excellency the President may consider nominating the chairperson of the National Police Service Commission who should have a sound legal background given that the mandate of the commission has quasi judicial functions, from one of the three persons named hereunder who have been duly interviewed by the committee”. The committee actually admits that it has gone beyond the statutory ... view
• 22 May 2012 in National Assembly: Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, the responsibility of the committee which by extension is the responsibility of this House is to endorse or reject and nominate. For the committee to purport to direct the President in terms of who he may or he may not appoint is contrary to the law and it is an attempt by the committee to influence a process where they have no mandate. In fact, the law is very clear that where the National Assembly rejects any nomination, the Speaker shall within three days communicate his decision to the President and request the President to submit ... view
• 22 May 2012 in National Assembly: Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, the law is so clear. The sequence is so succinct. Names come to the House. The House vets. The House adopts or rejects. If the House rejects, the Speaker communicates that decision to the President. The President then has the mandate to nominate any other person from the shortlist that has already been recommended to the President by the interviewing panel. What the committee is purporting to do here by recommending to the President who he may or may not nominate as a replacement for the names that have purportedly been rejected does not flow in ... view