Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1211232,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1211232/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 229,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Karachuonyo, ODM",
    "speaker_title": "Hon. Adipo Okuome",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": " Thank you, Hon. Temporary Speaker. I am glad that you recognise Karachuonyo as a constituency of great people. The President wanted our views. It is important that we give him our views on what he sent to our Speaker. Let me start with the NG-CDF. The Fund has done wonders in this country. People see the outcome of the NG-CDF. If you visit this country, you will see various projects in all corners of the nation. That is why the Fund must continue to exist. That is why it must be anchored in the Constitution to make sure that it serves the people today and for posterity. It is a great fund. Indeed, I support all the three funds proposed to be anchored in the Constitution. The NGAAF is little in amount, but it creates productivity in this nation. I support what my colleagues have said about the Senate Oversight Fund. It should not be a Senate issue alone, because oversight is a cardinal mandate of the two Houses of Parliament. We must anchor the Senate Oversight Fund in the Constitution, but it should cover both Houses. One thing which I want to emphasises is that let this process not be confused with the remaining issues. Debate on anchoring the NG-CDF in the Constitution had started. It should be treated as a completely separate thing. It should not be part of a global amendment of the Constitution that includes other issues. That will delay what we wanted to do. We wanted to do it as soon as possible so that development projects funded by the NG-CDF can have enough time during the life of the 13th Parliament. On inclusion of Leader of Official Opposition in the Constitution, there are a lot of questions arising from the proposal. We need to consider it very carefully. When we talk about a presidential or a parliamentary system of government, we are talking about a big thing. The country must be given enough time to consider it. This is not an issue to be considered together with an urgent matter like the NG-CDF. As of now, I cannot support or oppose it. There are many issues arising from it. On the two-thirds gender rule, I am not a lawyer but I declare it unconstitutional. It is totally unimplementable. Someone tells you: “Of these 20 people, give me five. The choice is yours but the result is ours. I want to see a result reflecting the two-thirds rule.” Is it a possibility in human life? I say it is not. You cannot give me the freedom to choose and judge me by a result which does not respect my freedom of choice. The suggestion to have nominations done is possible, but let us remember the maximum number of elected Members of Parliament representing constituencies is 290 plus 47 Woman Representatives and 12 Nominated Members, totalling to 349 Members. If you were to nominate more women so that their number is at least a third of the total membership, you would contravene the Constitution as you would exceed the maximum number of Members allowed in the House. The only way to do it is by amending the Constitution. We need to hold on a bit on some of these issues so that the Constitution is amended to cover such issues together with any other issues the people feel need to be changed. The proposal to have Cabinet Secretaries come to the House sounds good, but it raises other issues. Currently, we are working in a committee system where chairpersons wield power. My question is: If Cabinet Secretaries are going to do part of what Committee chairpersons do, to what extent will the new arrangement affect the current committee system? Hon. Temporary 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."
}