HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept
{
"id": 1211506,
"url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1211506/?format=api",
"text_counter": 216,
"type": "speech",
"speaker_name": "Homa Bay Town, ODM",
"speaker_title": "Hon. Peter Kaluma",
"speaker": null,
"content": "doctrine of equality and non-discrimination. The problem with the two-thirds gender principle, and I am not opposed to it… I am a son of a woman, a grandson of a woman, father of a woman, husband of a woman and brother of several women. Therefore, I support. I want our female gender, just as the male gender, to be in the leadership space because their contributions are both valuable. The problem with the realisation of the two-third gender principle is about the electoral system instituted by our Constitution, particularly Article 38. Everybody is entitled under that Article dealing with political rights to stand for elections, register to vote and to vote whomever they want. That provision, therefore, institutes what we call the first-past-the-post principle of elections where people seek seats and the citizens within various constituencies elect whomever they want. You cannot realise any specific gender quota be it one-third, two-thirds, or one-half principle in such a system. I wanted to explain to Members that in South Africa and Rwanda, where they have realised it, actually it is not first-past-the-post, but rather, it is the party list or proportionate representation system. Before the parties are voted in an election, they present a zebra list which enables the parties to meet the gender requirement. The line is then drawn and Members are picked. The question you want to ask is whether Kenyans agree to parties ultimately electing representatives for them. So long as Kenyans insist that they have to vote for their leaders and that the person who wins the elections wins, it is very unfair for anybody, without amending the Constitution, to institute the party-list system. It is very unfair to wait for Hon. Gikaria to be elected by the people of Nakuru or for Hon. Kaluma to be elected by the people of Homa Bay or for Hon. Irene Mayaka to be specially elected and then start questioning Parliament on why it is not properly constituted. That is not the business of Parliament. I agree with the President that we need to establish the gender principle. However, the amendment we need is not the one proposed in the Memorandum. The amendment should be one that removes the first-past-the-post system under the Constitution and institutes a party-list system. I doubt Kenyans would agree to that system. In any event, even if the Bill were to first come to Parliament, as the Deputy Leader of the Majority Party will confirm, it still will have to go to a referendum. In fact, most of these proposals will have to go to a referendum. Knowing how our parties operate, I doubt Kenyans would accept a party-list system. So, we are stuck with the current system. The fact is that with the constitutional design, the gender principle is incapable of being realised. I agree with the President on the proposal to have the NG-CDF and the NGAAF entrenched in the Constitution, save to add that we are not seeking the entrenchment because the current NG-CDF Act or the law underpinning the NGAAF are in any way unconstitutional. We need to have our teams in court explain to the court that time has come for the court to tell those Kenyans who believe only the NG-CDF or the NGAAF should be litigated to find other business to do. I think that is the direction we are going. We are seeking to entrench the Fund in the Constitution so that it is firmly secured, so that those benefits can continue to exist beyond the wishes of Parliament and the Executive per time. I have a problem with the proposal relating to Senate Oversight Fund. Whether we call it Senate Oversight Fund or Parliamentary Oversight Fund, it will run afoul of the Constitution. I know Hon. Johanna Ng’eno will agree with me. And this is not to say that I am opposed to Senators being facilitated better. The remuneration of public or State officers is to enable them discharge their functions. Whether we call ourselves Members of Parliament and call others Members of the National Assembly, Article 260 of the Constitution says our title is Member of Parliament. The roles of a Member of Parliament run from Article 93 to Article 96 of the Constitution. In summary, the roles of a Member of Parliament, whether in the Senate or in the National Assembly, are legislation, representation and oversight, whether of State officers or of budget, and a bit of appropriation. Our salary and that of Senators, whether it is little or too much, is to enable us discharge those roles. You want to ask yourself the question: If we were 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."
}