Samuel Kiprono Chepkonga

All parliamentary appearances

Entries 2291 to 2300 of 3315.

• 13 Nov 2014 in National Assembly: Thank you, hon. Temporary Deputy Chairman. The Committee discussed this matter very exhaustively. In fact, if you look at what we have just adopted, with the removal of “executive responsibility” it is more or less the same. It is a duplication of the first one but more importantly, the work of Parliament is not to investigate. We will be playing an executive function. Investigative work should be left 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
• 13 Nov 2014 in National Assembly: to the Director of Public Prosecution (DPP), Criminal Investigation Department (CID) and the police to investigate matters and recommend a person for prosecution. What Parliament normally does under the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) and Public Investments Committee (PIC) is just to establish whether there is prima facie evidence to suggest that this person is culpable of having committed a certain offence. Then, it recommends to the House to adopt the report so that such a person is investigated further by either the Anti-Corruption Commission, the DPP or the CID. That is an executive function. It is not a function of ... view
• 13 Nov 2014 in National Assembly: Thank you, hon. Temporary Deputy Chairman. The Committee again deliberated on the rejection by the President and we looked at Section 17(1), which is very clear. It reads as follows:- “The Commission shall through an open, transparent and competitive recruitment process with the approval of the National Assembly appoint a suitably qualified person to be the secretary to the Commission”. These are operative words. view
• 13 Nov 2014 in National Assembly: Yes, 17(3). This is a very important Commission. The reason why Parliament saw it fit to ensure that a CEO, who is appointed to this Commission, is shielded by this House is to ensure that he is protected from persons who might interfere with his work, more so, the commissioners themselves. Parliament, in its wisdom, provided that this is the only Commission in which the CEO is appointed with the approval of the National Assembly. In all the other commissions, CEOs are appointed by the commissioners. The Committee felt, very strongly, that the removal process should also follow the same ... view
• 13 Nov 2014 in National Assembly: Hon. Temporary Deputy Chairman, on this one, we completely depart from the President’s rejection of this matter. Even if we do not have the numbers here, we will bring it back as a Committee. We will bring it back as an amendment to that Act because it is an Act of Parliament. The President has no role in terms of the approval of the appointment of this person. If it was the President, we would not have had any problems because there would be some oversight role. view
• 13 Nov 2014 in National Assembly: On this particular one, the President has no role in the removal of the Chief Executive Officer; neither does he have any role in the appointment of the Chief Executive Officer. So, Parliament has given itself powers to sanction the approval of the Chief Executive Officer and this should happen. When we say this, we are not saying this because we have something against the President. We have nothing against the 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
• 13 Nov 2014 in National Assembly: President. This is a legal question. What we are saying is that we must oppose this one even if we are few as we are. At least, we are over 50 hon. Members, as I can see. The over 50 hon. Members should say no to this. We should reject it so that it gives us a basis as a Committee to bring it back for amendment. Thank you, hon. Temporary Deputy Chairman. view
• 13 Nov 2014 in National Assembly: Hon. Temporary Deputy Chairman, I think there is some confusion in this. If it is the removal of the Secretary without the input of Parliament, the Departmental Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs disagreed with the President. When it comes to the removal of the Secretary, it should be with the approval of the National Assembly as it is with the appointment of the Secretary of the Commission. This Commission is totally different from the other commissions. This is a very important Commission. It does very important work in seeking to prevent or arrest persons who are involved in corrupt ... view
• 13 Nov 2014 in National Assembly: Thank you, hon. Temporary Deputy Chairman. The Committee considered the rejection by the President and the proposed amendments and agreed with the President on the following basis: As you know, the Universities Act, 2012 imposes a requirement of every university, including the pre-existing universities, to apply for and obtain a charter from the Commission for University Education (CUE). So if it is left as it was, this will mean that some universities will be excluded from the definition of “legal education providers”. So it was important to provide clarity with regard to that amendment. Thank you. view
• 13 Nov 2014 in National Assembly: Thank you, hon. Temporary Deputy Speaker. I support the sentiments of the President in rejecting a number of those amendments that had been introduced in the House earlier except with that which dealt with appointment and dismissal of the Secretary to the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC). As you know, this is a legal question in which the Departmental Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs expressed itself in very clear way; that this is a matter that should not be left to the whims of the commissioners of the EACC. We are not opposing the President just for the sake ... view