GET /api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1065742/?format=api
HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept
{
"id": 1065742,
"url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1065742/?format=api",
"text_counter": 209,
"type": "speech",
"speaker_name": "Uasin Gishu CWR, JP",
"speaker_title": "Hon. (Ms.) Gladys Boss Shollei",
"speaker": {
"id": 13278,
"legal_name": "Gladys Jepkosgei-boss Shollei",
"slug": "gladys-jepkosgei-boss-shollei"
},
"content": "Clause 7 is legislation on elections. This has been touted by the proponents of the BBI as being able to cure post-election violence or post-election disagreements, but it does not. A close reading of it simply says that Parliament shall enact legislation to impose sanctions on parties that do not implement the two-thirds gender rule. Again, this is another counter-productive unnecessary amendment that can be done through amendments to the Political Parties Act. We do not need to have a constitutional change in order to achieve it. The proponents of the BBI have gone on to say that Clause 8 of the Bill, which deals with electoral disputes, is going to solve any disagreements after elections. Truth be told, it does not cure post-election violence. It simply broadens the mode of service when one wants to file an election petition. Historically, this comes from a situation where in 1992 and in 1997, when one required personal service, it was difficult to serve your opponent. So, it has not cured any post- election violence whatsoever. In fact, it introduces a very dangerous system of serving persons electronically. The security of that method can be infringed upon and can also be abused and even used to perpetrate fraud. The service we have, which is either through direct or through newspaper adverts, is sufficient enough. There is no mischief whatsoever that this superficial and superfluous amendment could possibly do to change some of the challenges that we have with disagreements after the electoral process."
}