Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1411533,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1411533/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 281,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Marakwet West, Independent",
    "speaker_title": "Hon. Timothy Kipchumba",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": " Thank you, Hon. Temporary Speaker, for the opportunity to contribute to this important Bill. I rise to support the Bill, but I will also propose some amendments to improve it. This Bill emanates from the NADCO Report that we discussed here. Before the formation of NADCO, the country was facing issues related to electoral injustices, which had pushed it to the brink of collapse. The NADCO was established to deliberate and reach a consensus on these matters. This Bill aims to address issues raised by the High Court, in particular the Katiba Institute case, which declared some sections of the IEBC Act unconstitutional. Hence, our purpose is to address the issues raised by the court to ensure a stable democracy. Unfortunately, some individuals refuse to accept election results after every election cycle. Having a law in place to address such concerns that cannot be resolved outside the law is essential. According to the NADCO Report, the IEBC Commissioners were supposed to be expanded from seven to nine. The Memorandum of Objects and Reasons for this Bill mentions seven to nine. However, the substance of the proposed law talks of 12, which needs to be reconciled. In my opinion, 12 is an expanded number, and Members may not agree with this. I am sure that NADCO had a valid reason for suggesting nine members. I am from one of the constituencies that will be affected by the delimitation of electoral units. Based on the population quota, Elgeyo Marakwet County will lose two constituencies, Marakwet East and Keiyo North. I agree with the proposed amendment that provides a new ground for boundary review. Hon. Temporary Speaker, the only issue I have with it is that we cannot place it in the schedules. In terms of interpretation of the Constitution, a schedule cannot have the same effect as an article of the Constitution. So, I support the proposed amendment that we have the same lifted and be put in the substantive part of the legislation. I support this because Article 89 of the Constitution gives grounds on which someone can challenge the removal of a constituency based on certain parameters. The proposed amendment talks of reference materials, which are primary and secondary. It refers to the secondary reference material reports of a County Boundary Review Panel. This panel is a stranger to the Constitution. That County Boundary Review Panel is nowhere in the Constitution. It also says that the Commission may use, as its secondary reference material, other relevant data. These other relevant data need to be defined because these are the parameters that are used to determine and review boundaries. The part of this proposed amendment that I laud is the one that seeks to amend the Act based on census data. But remember that the last census we undertook was in 2019. The next one is in 2029 — a ten-year difference. From 2019 to 2024, the population increased. Therefore, it will be unfortunate to review a boundary based on the population quota of 2019. I laud this amendment because it has given other parameters for reviewing the population quota apart from the census. 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"
}