Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1158717,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1158717/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 338,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Kipipiri, JP",
    "speaker_title": "Hon. Amos Kimunya",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 174,
        "legal_name": "Amos Muhinga Kimunya",
        "slug": "amos-kimunya"
    },
    "content": "You will note that in the same section, there is a provision which requires the IEBC to publish the polling station results forms on a public portal maintained by the Commission. This is part of the challenges that we witnessed. That has been removed so that we let the Commission do what it has to do and announce results in accordance with the Constitution. The issue of provisional results has raised emotions unnecessarily. People get into the portal and pick what they want to see. Some media houses hype what they want to see. It is the hyping of results that causes unnecessary tensions among the people. When results move in the direction they do not want, the standard conclusion of the Kenyan people is that the election is being rigged. We want the process to be the same as at the constituency level. All results should come in and be tallied. There is no reason why candidates should not do their own tallying individually from their agents. But we should not have the hype. I believe that is why the court prohibited live transmission by the media because it was causing unnecessary tension. We saw what happened in 2007 and 2017. We should also note that, according to the IEBC, there are about 11,000 polling centres that do not have 3G coverage to facilitate electronic transmission of results. Waiting for results while creating hype causes problems. This was also in the 2017 election petition where the court decreed that the final election results was what was contained in the election declaration forms, which are the primary document and I have explained that. Further, the court took issue with some of the amendments then which had been introduced in 2016. These are the ones that were declared unconstitutional that had eliminated the term “prescribed form”. So, we are reinstating that form in the prescribed form not just any form. So, the main issue that the court had warranted the declaration of invalidity of Section 39 was failure to indicate the results to be submitted in the prescribed form, which is the famous Form 34A series at the polling station, Form 34B at the constituency tallying centre, and I believe Form 34C at the county. So, that 34 series is important and it must be in the prescribed form not just results being transmitted. That is what the court ordered. Basically, if you allow me to quote part of that decision in the court, the Judge observed that: “The problem in so far as I can see is with regard to transmission of results from polling stations to the constituency, to the national tallying centres as required by the New Section 39(1)(c)(a).”"
}