Eng. Nicholas Gumbo

All parliamentary appearances

Entries 891 to 900 of 3504.

• 12 Nov 2015 in National Assembly: talking about developing procedures for establishing a code of conduct. Here we are talking about performance management, inspections and monitoring. That has got completely nothing to do with the code of conduct. The idea that once the Chief Justice develops a code of conduct, it will take care of that clause is wrong. Clause 29(2) states in part: “For the purpose of ensuring efficient, effective and economic use of resources”. If you stop there, misconduct is not mentioned there. Where does the code of conduct come in? I am completely at a loss. view
• 12 Nov 2015 in National Assembly: Hon. Temporary Deputy Chairman, I am sorry to drag you back on this matter. It is true that Clause 29(1) is talking about the Principal Judge in consultation with the Chief Justice. It is also true that the functions stated in Clause 29(2) are actually functions of the JSC. I do not see how providing those functions would at all be harmful towards the aspirations of this clause. I would have pleaded with my good friend, the Chairperson of the Departmental Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, that even if it means removing the Chief Justice and ascribing those functions ... view
• 12 Nov 2015 in National Assembly: Hon. Temporary Deputy Chairman, I am both happy and disappointed by the Member for Homa Bay because he is doing good things and bad things at the same time. view
• 12 Nov 2015 in National Assembly: Hon. Temporary Deputy Chairman, he is talking about offences in terms of a person who assaults, threatens, intimidates or willfully insults a judge. Insulting a judge is a very serious offence. Then he comes down to Part (3), a person who commits an offence under sub-clause (1) and he has listed a litany of offences. He has listed so many crimes here. Under (4), this is the bad thing that he does. He says that “a person who commits an offence under sub-clause (1) shall on conviction be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five days”. For heaven’s ... view
• 12 Nov 2015 in National Assembly: Hon. Temporary Deputy Chairman, allow me to continue. Then he says “five days or a fine of Kshs100,000”. Remember this is a country where people have said terrible things and said:- “I am willing to go to court. After all, I have the money”. You are doing this in a country like this one? view
• 12 Nov 2015 in National Assembly: Hon. Temporary Deputy Chairman, actually this is the question that I had. In general, I agree with what he has proposed, but I am just wondering, if you have given him the power to make those rules, why do you want him to consult with the Principal Judge? I do not understand. Maybe, he should explain to us. view
• 12 Nov 2015 in National Assembly: Hon. Temporary Deputy Chairman, the point I wanted to bring out is that by allowing the CJ to consult with the Principal Judge, you are making the Principal Judge participate in making rules that will govern how he works. view
• 12 Nov 2015 in National Assembly: Yes, Hon. Temporary Deputy Chairman, to the extent that we have removed “in consultation with the Principal Judge”, it is okay. Remember when we were doing amendments to the Public Audit Act, one of the most contentious rules was allowing one of the auditees, which is the National Treasury--- view
• 12 Nov 2015 in National Assembly: Auditee is perfect English, Member for Ol Jorok. One of the most contentious rules was allowing a principal auditee, which is the National Treasury, to have an input in making of the regulations. To the extent that we have removed that, we have cleaned it so that the power to make the rules vests in the CJ. As the Chair of the Committee has said, this will be a process. It is not just the CJ who will make the rules which become law unto themselves. I support the amendment. view
• 12 Nov 2015 in National Assembly: Hon. Temporary Deputy Chairman, again taking advantage of my hawk eyes, instead of saying “to a judge of the court”, why should it not be “to the judges of the court”? view