Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1097659,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1097659/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 138,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Ndhiwa, ODM",
    "speaker_title": "Hon. Martin Owino",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 13449,
        "legal_name": "Martin Peters Owino",
        "slug": "martin-peters-owino"
    },
    "content": " Thank you, Hon. Speaker. My own worry in this is that the process of popular initiative was challenged, but those who were challenging the process in the High Court did not even conduct public participation. They were just lawyers. The name of Wanjiku has been abused to the core. The second point is this: Can we have seven judges replacing the Constitution by judgment, especially when it is about the basic structure doctrine, which I think is foreign? We need your ruling on that. Third, I listened to the 10-hour judgment and I would like your guidance on how you borrow jurisprudence from foreign countries on something which is local. If it is something across East African countries or beyond, you carefully use references in the Commonwealth. There was a lot of borrowing in this matter. Lastly, I hope people who are enthusiastic like Hon. Ichung’wah will also celebrate when the Supreme Court overturns the judgment. Hon. Speaker, why should we have rulings that are based on knowledge but care less about the content of what is going to help Wanjiku? Nobody touched on the issues of corruption, time limit, and inclusivity yet those are the ones that bring war and chaos during elections. All these issues were thrown out in the name of the process! People are now taking sides without considering whatever is on the table. In this case, there are things which are affecting Wanjiku but are now political weapons used by both sides. Hon. Ichung’wah, when the ruling will be overturned, we want you to talk enthusiastically like you did when it was ruled by the Court of Appeal. Hon. Speaker, your ruling will be of important guidance, especially on this basic structure doctrine which I really disagree with. As it stands now, for this House to change the Constitution, we have to get permission from the courts. We represent the people and they did not want to send anyone else here. I agree when it is said that those who are elected, when they talk, they do so with the authority of the people! It is not just sitting on a bench and making amendments which are very difficult even for this House to pass. Lastly, this House must stand, in whichever way, for this progressive Constitution. As it is now, if it has to die with its 20 per cent deficiency, then we are not going to move as a country. Thank you, Hon. Speaker."
}