Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 174989,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/174989/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 372,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Prof. Kamar",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 33,
        "legal_name": "Margaret Jepkoech Kamar",
        "slug": "margaret-kamar"
    },
    "content": "Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise to support this Bill, which I believe is going to open the door to the process of the Constitutional review. Kenyans have waited for this Constitution. We gave them 100 days, months and at times we talked of fewer than 100 days. I believe that the process is very important, and is going to be a very important gift to our people for Christmas. As we discuss this, we need to look back: Why did the process fail in 2005? Was it because of the content or the process? I would like to say that both contributed. Even as we discuss this Bill, we must make sure that the process does not let us down, even when the content is good. Kenyans voted against both the content and process of constitution-making in 2005. I want to applaud the wide consultations that took place as we prepared this Bill. Kenyans should learn to consult. Those were landmark three days of consultations. I only want to talk on what we mean by the word \"independence\", because that is one of the problems that have let us down in this country. We have said that we are going to have an interim Independent Electoral Commission. If we tamper with it, the process could be flawed and Kenyans will reject it in the next referendum. The same thing applies to the boundaries review. If that group will not be independent enough to look at what we have given as parameters and decide where a boundary should be, their work will be thrown out again. As we think through what we want, we must consider the process. It was not just the content that was rejected in 2005, but the process was flawed and suspect. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, under Clause 41(c)(i), the Independent Boundaries Review Commission is supposed to consider using population density in urban areas versus the sparsely populated rural areas. I wish we would be talking about the vastness of the areas so that we come out clearly. There are constituencies in this country that are larger than provinces. 4140 PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES December 16, 2008"
}