Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1157907,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1157907/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 287,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Makueni, WDM-K",
    "speaker_title": "Hon. Daniel Maanzo",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 2197,
        "legal_name": "Daniel Kitonga Maanzo",
        "slug": "daniel-kitonga-maanzo"
    },
    "content": " I thank you for giving me an opportunity to discuss this very important Bill. An election law is very sensitive. When I looked at this Amendment Bill and the existing Act, I came to the conclusion that, although the amendments have been proposed by the IEBC, it could be a case of over-legislation on matters which have already been settled. These are matters that have been in practice since 2011 and have been useful. The only new useful thing I have seen is on county election petitions – the provision that the High Court becomes the final court in determination of county election matters so that they do not bother the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court. That is an improvement because there was no law limiting that aspect. An MCA could petition all the way to the Supreme Court and unnecessarily take a lot of the court’s time. That could be an improvement. Although the Departmental Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs is unanimous that this is a good law, there is a lot of repetition. We have to bear in mind the political parties law that we passed in this House recently, which was sent to the Senate for their concurrence. This Bill will also follow the same process. So, I am wondering whether we have enough time to debate and pass this Bill here and then send it to the Senate for their approval in the midst of political party nominations. The Senate may approve it with amendments and the Bill may end up being committed to a Mediation Committee of the two Houses. Will we be able to pass this Bill and have it signed by the President before we adjourn sine die ? If the process was to be expedited and have all this achieved, it would mean that there is a little bit of interest in the enactment of this law. This Bill has tried to reiterate certain things. It is worth noting that Section 83 of the Elections Act of 2011, which deals with nullification of an election, was declared unconstitutional in the Katiba Institute case. Therefore, some suggestions have been made in line with that unconstitutionality aspect. Probably, there is a proposal to improve the law for subsequent elections, hence, necessitating this Amendment Bill. I am just wondering why it has taken so long for the Bill to arrive in the House. How do we synchronise this Bill with the new Political Parties (Amendment) Bill and, more so, with regard to the new proposed definitions of “nomination” and “registration of candidate”? They mean one and the same thing. In fact, right now, political parties are in the process of preparing for nominations. My political party, the Wiper Democratic Movement, had meetings today in relation to the same. Tomorrow, we will meet all the candidates who want to participate in the nomination process. So, the process has begun. The nominations will start on 9th of this month. I believe the various political parties, including ODM – which is a vibrant political party whose nomination ticket is highly coveted compared to that of the UDA – are preparing to conduct their nominations. How do we halt the practice that is currently working in favour of something that is work in progress? Although this amendment came from the IEBC, how do we make sure that the current law is used meaningfully now? The new law will be used during subsequent elections and not during the coming elections. If it moves fast through the legislative process and catches up with the coming elections, probably some of its information and practice will be useful. I participated in the last two presidential election petitions as an Advocate of the High Court of Kenya. The big problem with the second petition, which was successful, was revealing information contained in the IEBC servers as ordered by the Supreme Court. The information was never revealed. What is being introduced in this law is that a presiding officer at a polling station will be the final determinant of the total sum of the electoral count of that polling station and he or she will immediately wire it to the tallying centre. We have given so much power to the wrong person – the presiding officer. The right person is the returning officer of a particular constituency. Within a particular constituency, it is easy to get the total vote count and hold the returning officer The electronic version of the Official Hansard Report is for information purposesonly. A certified version of this Report can be obtained from the Hansard Editor."
}