Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1047852,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1047852/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 36,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Bondo, ODM",
    "speaker_title": "Hon. Gideon Ochanda",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 1264,
        "legal_name": "Gideon Ochanda Ogolla",
        "slug": "gideon-ochanda-ogolla"
    },
    "content": "I want to believe that Jeremiah is fairly in order. I wanted to mention two things. One, is that there is a clear way in terms of what the Constitution says about amending it. You can only amend it by bringing a Bill. I think this is a fact that remains and must remain. I think this is where there is confusion because some think you can do this through a Question first, then bring a Bill. The whole thing logically and legally is that you must bring a Bill. Look at it and vote on it. Once you have voted on the Bill as an item, then the next step is ayes or no as we do here in Parliament. I think this is where the problem is. We have done three referendums before. We did one in the 1960s which some of us may not know. We did a referendum in 2005 and a third one in 2010. We are facing a fourth referendum which is in our sight. I want to believe we will do it. We have done all this, apart from the next one, minus a law. This law is important, mandatory and we have been late with it. Therefore, I support this Bill. While I do so, there are five items we may want to look at a fresh in terms of amending the Bill or making them a bit straight. There are some that are neither in line or contradicting. Just like in my first statement, for example, if you look at Section 6, it states every question. This means there are many more questions. Yet, we are saying the question should be one. This is not following very well. This is because we are talking about every question and not the question. If you look at Section 12, it states the constituency being a single polling area. I think this is something that needs to be looked into again. That there is space to make a constituency one polling area. Does this mean that the entire voters of the constituency will come to one centre because our polling area has been a polling station? When you talk about a constituency being a polling area, does it mean there is a possibility that the entire constituency can be a polling area? The other thing that needs to be checked into is the role of the IEBC. One of their roles is conducting civic education and then parallel to this there is a campaign committee. How can the two run parallel together? What kind of content will they be bringing out for purposes of civic education? What kind of content will the campaign committee bring? I think this is where we will have conflict. For example, the IEBC may be talking about the process in terms of how you move with your vote and stuff like that, but then, there is a campaign committee that is campaigning for particular positions. So, how do we check the two or at what stage does one end and the other begins. Maybe we can have it in a manner that the IEBC must have a very objective content for purposes of civic education. This must be beyond the normal process of movement of a voter from one place to another to items or issues listed out for purposes of the vote. The other area is in Section 25 on tallying. There is a mention that tallying is to be done at the tallying centre. In terms of the kind of practice we have adopted as at now, counting is done at the polling centre and not tallying centre. If you look at the Maina Kiai issue, this means that in Clause 25, if you go by tallying, then the polling station will not be a tallying area. You will have to carry the results from a polling station to a tallying area like the constituency level. I think this is an area that needs to be looked into."
}