Entry Instance

HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept

{
    "id": 1047831,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1047831/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 15,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Funyula, ODM",
    "speaker_title": "Hon. (Dr.) Wilberforce Oundo",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 13331,
        "legal_name": "Wilberforce Ojiambo Oundo",
        "slug": "wilberforce-ojiambo-oundo-2"
    },
    "content": "First, I want to look at the process of the Bill as currently drafted. I want to trust the presentation made by the Chair of JLAC on behalf of the Committee. It was very clear. There are gaps that need to be looked at. We need to address the process. Once a promoter makes a decision to promote a contentious issue, what is the process that one has to go through to the point when we conclude? I am afraid that the Committee does not seem to have fully addressed the most contentious issue of the process: How do you verify 1,000 or a million signatures? It is provided for in the Constitution, but it is an act of Parliament that generally solves these problems. It is unfortunate that the JLAC, in its Report, does not come out very clearly on this matter. Does the IEBC have a repository, store or a specimen signature for everybody? The answer is obviously “no”. It will, therefore, remain a very difficult question to answer. Yes, as a promoter, I have collected a million signatures, but how sure am I they are true signatures of the people who purport to sign for them? It is important we develop a mechanism because this is a popular initiative and we have no choice at all, but to make sure that we get it right. Otherwise, we are going to get it wrong. The second important issue that has been canvassed in this House and elsewhere is on the issue of multiple choices. The Bill talks about options. However, in a popular initiative, how do you then identify what question to ask and what question not to ask? The Bill speaks to itself. It runs from the citations to the schedules. Trying to isolate particular aspects and leaving out others would be onerous, cumbersome and defeatist to the sole purpose of the promoter promoting the Bill. On the issue of the appeal process or petition, the Constitution might not be expressly clear on whether the Supreme Court can have a say in the matter. The issue of a referendum, which touches on issues stated in Article 255 of the Constitution, are weightier than a presidential petition. Is it fair to the people of Kenya that the matter only has to end at the court of appeal yet there are quite a number of petitions regarding governorship or even parliamentarians that go all the way to the Supreme Court because of public interest? Those are some of the issues that we must deal with. We are faced with a referendum arising from the debate we are having. A referendum should surely not be used to divide the people of Kenya. Let us talk to the merits at hand, let us be factual and not lie. In addition, that is why it is important. We cannot afford to remove the Referendum Committee from the proposed Bill. This is because at any given time there must be people who will coalesce or organise either for or against. Therefore, it is important that those referendum committees be retained. With those very many remarks, I stand to support the Referendum (Bill No. 2 of 2020). Thank you Hon. Temporary Deputy Speaker."
}