- The Koome directive saw Chief Registrar of Judiciary Anne Amadi snub the Public Accounts Committee on Monday.
- Muturi is expected to make a ruling when the House resumes sittings next month.
Image: FILE
A National Assembly panel wants Speaker Justin Muturi to give directions on its oversight of the Judiciary.
The Public Accounts Committee seeks to know whether it can adopt and apply special standards in examining the Auditor-General’s reports on the financial statements for the Judiciary and the Judicial Service Commission.
The committee, chaired by Ugunja MP Opiyo Wandayi, took the step after Chief Justice Martha Koome stalled any engagement between the Judiciary and parliamentary committees until some issues are ironed out.
The directive communicated in the CJ’s July 7 letter to the two speakers of Parliament—Muturi and Ken Lusaka of the Senate—saw Chief Registrar of the Judiciary Anne Amadi snub the Wandayi committee on Monday.
As the accounting officer of both the Judiciary and the JSC, Amadi was to respond to queries raised by Auditor General Nancy Gathungu in her 2018-19 report.
Muturi is expected to make a ruling on CJ’s letter when the house resumes sittings next month.
On Tuesday, PAC asked Muturi to rule on whether or not there are persons that are exempt from the application of the provisions of Article 125 of the Constitution.
Article 125 (1) gives the bicameral Parliament, and any of its committees, powers to summon any person to appear before it for the purpose of giving evidence or providing information.
The same article gives committees equal treatment as the High Court, with powers to enforce the attendance of witnesses and compel the production of documents.
“PAC requests that you make a ruling on whether PAC can proceed and conclude its ongoing work without receiving the crucial evidence concerning the audit queries raised in paragraphs 1644 and 1651 of the Auditor General’s report for the financial year 2018-19 or not,” Wandayi said in the letter.
“...whether PAC, in the execution of its mandate, should treat all state organs and agencies equally or not.”
The two audit queries were in regard to irregular acting appointments and irregular long-acting appointments.
Gathungu noted in her report that the Judiciary breached its own human resource policies and procedures after it emerged that some staff had been appointed in an acting capacity to positions for a period of between 16 and 40 months.
Section B 20 (iii) and (iv) of the Judiciary Human Resource Policies and Procedures manual requires that any acting appointments be held for a maximum of 12 months, which can only be extended by six months.
The manual further provides that an officer who has acted for 18 months reverts to the former position.
In another instance, the report revealed that 10 judicial officers serving in an acting capacity had held some of the positions for more than three years contrary to the HR policy.
Edited by F'Orieny