HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept
{
"id": 1381825,
"url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1381825/?format=api",
"text_counter": 327,
"type": "speech",
"speaker_name": "Sen. Osotsi",
"speaker_title": "",
"speaker": {
"id": 13588,
"legal_name": "Osotsi Godfrey Otieno",
"slug": "osotsi-godfrey-otieno"
},
"content": "This matter has a huge historical basis. In fact, in my office, I have several files of Petitions, which have been presented to me on that matter. Some are by elders who were there when this problem started. They know the history and all the details. I commend my predecessor, Sen. George Khaniri, for having tried hard to pursue this matter in this Senate. I hope that this Bill will be passed by this House and the National Assembly as well, in the spirit of NADCO and bi-partisanship, so that we have this resolved, once and for all. I want to agree with the Sen. Mungatana who said that we need to relook at Clause 16 of this Bill. The requirement for two-thirds of Members of the National Assembly and two-thirds of the Senate is too high. Perhaps, we need to lower that threshold to a simple majority. With the two-thirds requirement, from my experience, it is will be extremely difficult to have this Bill passed. You remember the attempts that have been made to pass the two-thirds gender rule Bill. It has failed several times in the National Assembly because of the inability to get the two-thirds. I request that we have amendments so that we make it easy for this Bill to sail in these two Houses. Madam Temporary Speaker, on the issue of the factors to be considered for boundary alteration, the Bill considers issues of population density, demographic trends, physical and human infrastructure, historical and cultural ties, cost of administration, views of the community affected, objects of devolution and government and geographical features. Sen. Mungatana had a point. We also need to look at issues of revenue management so that in case we are unable to resolve the issues of the boundary, then we have something to take home. That is a problem we have between Vihiga and Kisumu over Maseno. This is because the infrastructure which is in Maseno; the university, the church, the hospital and many others, people from the other side feel that they have been discriminated in matters of employment, revenue and many other issues. If we can have revenue management as one of the issues to be considered in this process, that will be very important. There are also issues of economy. I have talked about employment, access to amenities and all that. For example, on the Maseno side, we have the Maseno School. We have about two streams for local students. The people from Vihiga County do not benefit from that because it is largely Kisumu area. Those are issues that will easily generate disputes and make this thing look the way it is looking. Concerning compensation, how would people be compensated in case the boundary alteration becomes difficult? I fully support the provision in the Bill that Petitions that come close to the election, 12 months to the election, should not be submitted. I am saying this because although a lot of people from the Vihiga side have felt that this matter needs to be handled peacefully and amicably, but there are politicians who always trigger division closer to the election by using the Maseno issue. In the last election, our colleagues whom we were competing with from the other coalition, maximised on this issue to try and defeat Azimio Coalition. However, people of this area have lived peacefully and have intermarried. The Luhya community have The electronic version of the Senate Hansard Report is for information purposes only. A certified version of this Report can be obtained from the Director, Hansard Services, Senate."
}