GET /api/v0.1/hansard/entries/10149/?format=api
HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept

{
    "id": 10149,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/10149/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 562,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Ms. Karua",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 166,
        "legal_name": "Martha Wangari Karua",
        "slug": "martha-karua"
    },
    "content": "Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in opposition to the amendment If we listened properly to the Mover of the Motion, firstly, we must agree that all the four ladies are qualified, but in order of merit, we know how each one of them ranks. The reasons that the two Principals gave for rejecting candidate number one were based on the ethnicity they ascribed to her. The Report here so far has shown that they were wrong on her ethnicity, and even if you stretch and talk of her ethnicity by marriage, you will find that they were, again, wrong. Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, even on ethnic balance, they were wrong, and the Constitution does not only talk of ethnicity and region. It starts with meritocracy as number one. After you consider meritocracy, you also consider regional and ethnic balance, and all the other things. I am thinking that we are wrong to proceed as though it is the four ladies who are on trial. It is the two Principals and the methodology they used that is on trial. The process was wrong, and it is now pitting Kenyan professionals against each other through no fault of their own. Unless we arrest this situation now, it is going to affect generations to come. It is also going to affect us and our children. We need to correct it now. Let any rejection be for the correct reasons. The second reason that the two Principals gave was that there are two other people who are in the commission, who are from the same region or ethnicity as candidate number one, which is not correct. Even the two that were being alluded to, one has already joined the Commission on Administration of Justice; this was passed by this House. Therefore, we should approach this debate with sobriety, and not with emotions, so that we can correct the situation and force the two Principals to re-think their position. I note that the letter is written by the Head of Public Service and Secretary to the Cabinet. Is it, perhaps, that the two Principals were misled on the ethnicity of this candidate? I do not want to ascribe improper motive to them. Perhaps they were misled. Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Committee is not saying that any of these ladies is bad. It is saying that the Report is based on the wrong premise. It would, therefore, be wrong to amend the Motion on the grounds that were given by the Mover of the amendment. Doing so is missing the point. We need to take the Motion as it is and reject the names for the Chair, so that the two Principals can reconsider the position and come back to the House with better reasons, and not with reasons that are factually incorrect. This House is not a rubber stamp. If we rubber stamp something that is factually incorrect, we will be undermining the integrity of this House. With those remarks, I beg to oppose."
}