My concern is on section No. 26 sub section 2&3. I don’t see Sub section No. 3 relevant since district production and Marketing officers submit quarterly consolidated quarterly reports to MAAIF. It is also very unfair to the side of a district Fisheries officer to be convicted under this subsection due to the fact that there is already a “public service standing orders” put to check on the behavior and performance of all civil servants while executing their duties.this section should be deleted completely from the bill since it appears descriminatory to public servants. The public service standing orders is enough to reward such errant officers.
I beg to submit.
Byangwa y
2 months ago
My concern is on section No. 26 sub section 2&3. I don’t see Sub section No. 3 relevant since district production and Marketing officers submit quarterly consolidated quarterly reports to MAAIF. It is also very unfair to the side of a district Fisheries officer to be convicted under this subsection due to the fact that there is already a “public service standing orders” put to check on the behavior and performance of all civil servants while executing their duties.this section should be deleted completely from the bill since it appears descriminatory to public servants. The public service standing orders is enough to reward such errant officers.
My concern is on section No. 26 sub section 2&3.
I don’t see Sub section No. 3 relevant since district production and Marketing officers submit quarterly consolidated quarterly reports to MAAIF. It is also very unfair to the side of a district Fisheries officer to be convicted under this subsection due to the fact that there is already a “public service standing orders” put to check on the behavior and performance of all civil servants while executing their duties.this section should be deleted completely from the bill since it appears descriminatory to public servants. The public service standing orders is enough to reward such errant officers.
I beg to submit.
My concern is on section No. 26 sub section 2&3.
I don’t see Sub section No. 3 relevant since district production and Marketing officers submit quarterly consolidated quarterly reports to MAAIF. It is also very unfair to the side of a district Fisheries officer to be convicted under this subsection due to the fact that there is already a “public service standing orders” put to check on the behavior and performance of all civil servants while executing their duties.this section should be deleted completely from the bill since it appears descriminatory to public servants. The public service standing orders is enough to reward such errant officers.
I beg to submit.