Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1371211,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1371211/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 204,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Sen. Mumma",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "Therefore, the key function lies with the county governments; one that structures the law in a manner that respects that. Mr. Speaker, Sir, I would also want to see a law that respects the principles of the Constitution, one that would be centred on the rights of the very people we would want to be helping with this law. This law needs to be stronger in supporting coffee farmers. I have not seen a strength in that. I have seen a strength in establishing an institution that is not different from the coffee board that existed before. We all know that the coffee board that existed before ended up serving, perhaps people that Sen. (Dr.) Khalwale refers to as cartels. It ended up being a tool that was used by a few wealthy people against the majority of the small-scale farmers. Mr. Speaker, Sir, when you look at Clause Seven in terms of the persons who are supposed to form the coffee board, I find that the clause does not guarantee in accordance with Article 27 of the Constitution that the necessary gender ratios will be achieved. I request that the Mover of the Bill ensures that he puts in a clause that will ensure once appointments have been done, they respect the constitutional provision under Article 27(8) that requires that appointive bodies must respect the two-third gender rule. This would mean that whoever is appointing must devise a formula that will not violate this. I also see a pattern that may suggest that the bigger coffee farmers belongs to the national Government and the small-scale farmers belong to the county government. That is a bad fallacy. Clause 7(1)(d) is proposing that two persons of opposite genders representing small-scale coffee growers be nominated by the Council of Governors (CoG). Clause1(g) is proposing one person representing an association of coffee farmers nominated by the Cabinet Secretary. Trying to suggest that the bigger-scale farmers belong to the national Government and the small-scale farmer belongs to the county governments. This is splitting hairs. There is no large-scale farmer who is not situated in a county. We must not by these clauses hive off what belongs to the county and give it to the national Government. When it comes to the function, I would want to see one that requires the board to act in the best interest of coffee farmers and not small-scale or large-scale farmers. This is not just a board that directs farmers on what to do around the prices and on matters relating to licensing, but does not listen to the people. I have not seen a clause that provides for public participation in terms of decision- making that ensures that the decision that carries the day is a decision that is in the best interest of the farmers. Mr. Speaker, Sir, as I finalise, I want to speak on Schedule II. In my view, Schedule II has determined the licenses that will be issued by the board, the county governments and the Capital Market Authority (CMA). In that schedule, functions of counties have been given to the board. This is something that I would want the Committee to relook at to ensure that we are not clawing back on the constitutional functional assignment to county governments and taking mandates that belong to counties, giving them to a board that is in control of the national Government. Therefore, clawing back on county functions."
}