Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1157955,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1157955/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 335,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Kipipiri, JP",
    "speaker_title": "Hon. Amos Kimunya",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 174,
        "legal_name": "Amos Muhinga Kimunya",
        "slug": "amos-kimunya"
    },
    "content": "that they can be relied upon to do justice in nomination processes. This is exactly why that gap was created in the first place. Since that mischief is still there and it has not been demonstrated why we should remove it, I am persuaded and I will be happy to support the amendment to that clause if Members feel that way. The other one that has also been brought about is on the issue of registration of voters being dependent on one proving they have a stake in a certain area. The proposal is to have six months in an area. Hon. T. J. Kajwang’ demonstrated—with residents in his constituency who are very mobile or potentially mobile and may also have tenancies that may not be documented by paperwork that will require legal standing—that it would be very difficult to ask a person to prove they have been a resident of Mathare in the last six months. So, the practicability of that may be an issue. Because I would not want to be the one tying or disenfranchising somebody from being registered as a voter and not exercising their Article 38 rights on account of that they cannot demonstrate they are residents or they own a house, it is one of the clauses that I am willing to look at. I agree with the observations of the Committee that, perhaps it is premature to bring that until we have proper addressing system that can tackle or that Amos Kimunya resides in number this of this area and hence it can prove I have resided in this address for the last six months so that I be registered as a voter. In our mobile system and with the pastoralists moving between places, it is too early for that. On those two, I am willing to concede. I just want to put that for the record because that has also caused a lot of concern. On all the other matters, I think the law is good. It is born out of frustrations. Some of the amendments are just cleaning up consequential amendments arising from us passing the Political Parties Act. Like I said in moving, we shifted some responsibilities and some nomenclature to the Registrar of Political Parties. We need to make sure that we do not have confusion between who does nomination and who registers candidates. There is a whole raft of clauses that are just addressing that bit. The other most important bit is what the Hon. Kaluma has mentioned. Let me first of all speak to those who are asking why this Bill is coming this late. It has not come late. The Bill is being processed in this House late though it came in touch with Parliament about eight months ago, as a legislative proposal. Members may recall that we even asked questions in this House on why the chairman of the IEBC was talking to the media and saying Parliament is delaying legislating on electoral laws. I got concerned, as the Temporary Deputy Speaker got concerned. We asked where the laws that had not come to Parliament were. We were told we are late only to realise later on that the chairman of the IEBC and his team were negotiating with the Departmental Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs on a proposal which only became law when I published, it at heavy insistence, in January. There is a record of the raft of communication I had with the Attorney General as way back as November. I was asking for this Bill so that we could process it together with the Political Parties Act. It would have been concurrent. When you say Hon. Kaluma is playing the devil’s advocate, he has unfortunately gone beyond that. Having been a part of the team that was delaying for those eight months and having been part of causing the delay, he is now trying to get what they call ex turpi causa non orituractio in law. It should apply to him. He cannot claim relief that we should not be discussing this Bill yet it is him and the Committee that were part of delaying the Bill from coming here. Indeed, had we passed this Bill in good time, we would have had the benefit of it applying in these nominations. But, it is never too late. The good thing is that Members will get some reprieve because, either way, we are deleting the 90 days. So, it does not matter. The other provisions relate to the election day itself. Hence, we are still in good time. 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."
}