Johnson Arthur Sakaja

All parliamentary appearances

Entries 4481 to 4490 of 5036.

• 26 May 2015 in National Assembly: Even the earlier provisions that we had were almost taking this constitutional privilege that the President has been given in nominating and appointing the AG. In fact, in any case, we should do away with the provision of the selection panel and just have the President nominate. If the President wants to nominate through a selection panel, let him have the leeway to do it. Or, if he just wants to appoint by thinking of somebody or an advice from one CS, the Constitution has given the permission to do it but we have made it too restrictive in terms ... view
• 26 May 2015 in National Assembly: Clause 19 is sort of trying to make a shortcut within the budget process because what it was providing for was that the budget estimates of the Office of the AG shall be forwarded to the National Treasury for review and subsequent onward transmission to the National Assembly. The Senate felt that we need to remove the word “review”. The Constitution only provides that the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) and the Parliamentary Service Commission (PSC) are the bodies that can send their budgets to the National Assembly directly. By removing provisions for review by National Treasury, it is tantamount to ... view
• 26 May 2015 in National Assembly: Advisory Board is purely advisory. If anything, a lot of the provisions and the language that was used in Clause 26 was written with a lot of finality. For instance if you read Clause 26 (a) it says: “The Audit Advisory Board shall deal with recruitment of senior managers. They shall determine the remuneration and other terms of appointment.” An advisory board should be purely advisory. The amendment by the Senate was written very well to make sure that it remains as such; purely advisory. In Clause 32, the provision in the original Bill was that a state organ and ... view
• 26 May 2015 in National Assembly: That provision was that all the staff of the AG’s Office performing such sensitive audit within security organs must undergo vetting by the appropriate security agency, not the agency being audited. At the beginning of it a certain number of members of staff from the AG’s office should be passed on for vetting may be by the National Intelligence Service (NIS). view
• 26 May 2015 in National Assembly: Thank you, hon. Temporary Deputy Chairman. I rise to agree with the Chairman of the Committee in rejecting the Senate amendment for two reasons. One, the entire constitution of this Audit Advisory Board should strictly be to advise. For you The electronic version of the Official Hansard Report is for information purposesonly. A certified version of this Report can be obtained from the Hansard Editor. view
• 26 May 2015 in National Assembly: to strictly advise and to advise in an independent way, the Auditor-General should not be a member or even chair. Hon. (Eng.) Gumbo addressed parallels of the JSC and the PSC. The JSC is not an advisory board. It executes certain roles. If you look at Article 172, they recommend appointments of judges. They review the conditions of service. They appoint and receive complaints. They are an executive board. So is the PSC if you look at Article 127. The PSC undertakes executive functions within Parliament but this other one is an Advisory Board that is supposed to look at ... view
• 26 May 2015 in National Assembly: THAT the Bill be amended by deleting clause 26 and substituting therefor the following new Clause- view
• 26 May 2015 in National Assembly: Functions of the Audit Advisory Board. 26.(1) Subject to section 10, the principal function of the Audit Advisory Board shall be to advise the Auditor-General on the exercise of his or her powers and the performance of his or her functions under the Constitution and this Act. (2) Subject to the generality of subsection (1) the Board shall, in addition to any other function that may be conferred by this Act or any other law, advise the Auditor-General on- (a) the recruitment of senior managers into the Office of the Auditor-General; (b) the development and review of organizational development issues ... view
• 26 May 2015 in National Assembly: (e) any other matter that the Auditor-General may refer to the Board from time to time view
• 26 May 2015 in National Assembly: I just want to point out that our rejection of this is for the right reasons because we agreed and we are saying that these national security organs must be audited. For it to be done well there must be an inception meeting. If we do not put it in the law some of these heads of security organs will avoid the auditors and it is at the highest level of both. Secondly, we are saying it is very important that the staff members under the Auditor-General’s Office who are performing audits of national security organs must be vetted by ... view