Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1211781,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1211781/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 200,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Rarieda, ODM",
    "speaker_title": "Hon. (Dr) Otiende Amollo",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": " As you know, as a lawyer, I am holding brief, very briefly. Let me issue two cautionary statements. First, of the four issues that have been raised in the President’s Memorandum, three would expressly require a referendum. Only one, the one relating to the NG-CDF and the Senate Oversight Fund, would not require a referendum under Article 255(3). The composition of Parliament in terms of gender, admitting cabinet secretaries on the Floor of the House and introducing a leader of official opposition are issues that touch on the sovereignty of the people, structure and system of government and functions and composition of Parliament. They would expressly require a referendum. As we discuss this Memorandum, we need to bear that in mind clearly. It is not an easy path. The second caution is that as Members of Parliament, it is good to look at the interests of many people. Of paramount importance is the interests of citizens, our own voters, who are the beneficiaries of these funds. I would like to make it clear. A Member said that the NG-CDF is unconstitutional. That is not true. The NG-CDF is constitutional. There is no court anywhere, so far, that has found the NG-CDF Act, 2015, unconstitutional. What we are doing is to entrench the Fund in the Constitution, so that we cater for much more. Our sisters who represent counties have the NGAAF, but it is not properly anchored. We want to include it and the Senate Oversight Fund and call them oversight funds. That is why we are amending the Constitution. Let it not be supposed that we are amending the Constitution because we think the NG-CDF is unconstitutional. We will be shooting ourselves in the leg. For our own purposes, I urge Members that we need to remove the bit of the Memorandum that deals with the NG-CDF and oversight funds because we were already on it. Let us use it because as part of the ad hoc Committee, we have already gone much further than this Memorandum. We have already drafted the necessary amendments to the Constitution which do not require a referendum. Let us move with speed, run with that and first leave outside these other issues that might raise partisan politics. Let us take care of our interests before we take care of other interests. If you do not heed my caution, watch this space. If you maintain this Senate Oversight Fund together with these three other issues, they will be lost in space and the consequences will be quite dire because we are racing against time. The idea of amending the Constitution is not a bad one. Our Constitution is ripe for amendment. Twelve years after any Constitution is enacted, it is good for citizens to sit together and look at what is bad and what is good. Amendment of any constitution, however, should always be bipartisan. It should always involve the public. In fact, it is not just bipartisan in Parliament, it is beyond Parliament. All previous attempts to amend the Constitution by former presidents Daniel Moi and Mwai Kibaki failed because the initiation was not bipartisan. I want to caution that this initiative, in so far as it is not bipartisan, is the wrong way to look at amendment to the Constitution. We require a bipartisan approach. I want to tell my brothers and colleagues in the Departmental Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs right from the word go that this initiative will fail on two accounts. First, it is the account on which the Building Bridges Initiative failed. I am not saying that I agree with the Supreme Court. I do not, but they pronounced themselves. That is as it is now. In so far as this initiative is expressly by the President and this Memorandum starts in paragraph one and two by restating the date when the President said it and then attaching a copy of the President’s Memorandum, it will fall afoul the determination of the Supreme Court in terms of initiation. 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."
}