HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept
{
"id": 190816,
"url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/190816/?format=api",
"text_counter": 288,
"type": "speech",
"speaker_name": "Mrs. Odhiambo-Mabona",
"speaker_title": "",
"speaker": {
"id": 376,
"legal_name": "Millie Grace Akoth Odhiambo Mabona",
"slug": "millie-odhiambo-mabona"
},
"content": "Thank you, Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, for giving me this opportunity. I want to speak on the spirit and body of the Bill. Speaking on the spirit of the Bill, I want to join the views of the hon. Members that have spoken before; that this country has actually gone through a period of crisis. The violence that we saw took on ethnic dimensions. We saw neighbour rising against neighbour, friends rising against friends and also people who fellowship together in the same church rising against one another. Therefore, in terms of the spirit of this Bill, it is positive. It acknowledges tribalism as a negative factor in this country. It seeks to promote positive ethnic and racial relations. Many countries are replete with histories of racial discrimination that has almost brought down countries. We have the case of Apartheid in South Africa that almost brought the country on its knees. Many developed countries have also grappled with the issue of discrimination, especially racial discrimination. We have seen in countries within Africa such as Rwanda, the massacre that happened, especially when people disagree along ethnic lines. I wish to say that the spirit of this Bill is very positive. This Bill is timely. It is what we need in this country now and not tomorrow or in future. However, my concern is this: Does the body of this bill address itself to the spirit that I am talking about? My concern is that the body does not in any way relate to the concerns that even the Members that are talking in support of this Bill are saying. I have heard people very elaborately giving their views on ethnic issues. The two hon. Members that have spoken before me have been extremely elaborate. Almost every Member who has spoken without exception, is actually saying the same thing. Why are we saying the same thing and some are coming to ultimately say that they are either supporting or not? Whereas we are saying one thing or the other, there are those of us who feel that what we are saying is actually not contained in the Bill. I would want to encourage the hon. Minister because we have actually consulted with her and she has actually explained to me that this is a first step. I do understand that it is a first step. But I would want to encourage her that it should be a first substantive step. I know that a lot of work has gone into this. As I said, I can see that the spirit is good. But there is a lot of substantive work that needs to be done in relation to this Bill in order for it to meet the expectations of the Members who have been speaking here. Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, this Bill is basically about setting up a Commission. Therefore, the bulk of it has to do with very procedural issues which are standard in every other Bill that sets up a Commission. So, the substantive section for me is Clause 13 that talks of the objectives of the Bill. It says: \"The objects and purpose for which the Commission is established is to facilitate and promote equality of opportunity, good relations, harmony and peaceful co- existence between persons of the different ethnic communities of Kenya and to advise the Government on all aspects thereof.\" Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, even though this Bill states that very clearly, there is nothing else in this Bill, in my view, that actually gives credence to the aspects of facilitating. If you look at it, especially, sub-clause 2, you will see words such as \"promote\", \"discourage\" and \"lobby\". If I go on and on, this is really wording that would be very appropriate for, especially civil society organizations that would be coming to lobby a body that is already in existence to include certain things. It would be a very good wording for, especially for religious organizations. That is why, for instance, one Member was suggesting that this work would be done very adequately by July 3, 2008 PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES 1649 the Anglican community and other religious bodies. I would not want to go that far. I know that even a Commission can do that. However, the question is: Must a Commission do this? Should a Commission do this? Do we need a Commission to do this? The answer is no. We do not need a Commission to do this. The reason we do not need a Commission to do this is that if you actually look at the mandate that we are giving this Commission, in essence, it is work that should be specific, measurable, achievable, realistic and time-bound, that is, SMART. That, by the very nature of it, should be the work of a task force that has very specific time lines. I would, therefore, suggest to the Minister that we set up a task force with a time line to do what we are actually asking this Commission to do. If we specifically look at a clause that was read by an hon. Member, that is, Clause (m), it reads as follows:- \"monitor and review all legislation and all administrative acts relating to or having implications for ethnic relations and equal opportunities and from time to time prepare and submit to the Government proposals for revision of such legislation and administrative acts\". For me, that is a mandate that is very appropriate for a task force of the Law Reform Commission. They should review the laws and all policies and thereafter tell us that this is the piece of legislation we need. We already know and, people have already spoken to us about issues of concern, we do not even need to do--- This is not work that should take more than six months. Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, with regard to the issue of the Commission itself, even as constituted within the Bill, it is actually toothless. It has powers over procedural issues, but not over substantive ones. Why does it have no powers over substantive issues? Because the Bill has no substantive issues. Therefore, my suggestion to the Minister is that we need to relook at the Bill very critically. I support the spirit of the Bill, but we need to relook at it and give it some flesh. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, my other concern about this Commission is that it duplicates the work of the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights (KNCHR). If you look at the mandate of the KNCHR, it can very adequately deal with the work that this Commission will do. If it is bogged down with a lot of work, we can actually strengthen it and give it powers to deal with what we are giving this Commission to do. If you look at the Truth, Justice and Reconciliation Commission Bill, you will realise that this Commission is going to duplicate the work of the Commission that is proposed there. I would like to refer to Clause 5(j) of the Truth, Justice and Reconciliation Commission Bill. It provides that one of the objects of the Commission will be inquiring into the causes of ethnic tension and making recommendations on promotion of healing, reconciliation and co-existence among the ethnic communities. There is no reason why we should set up a Commission to look into ethnic issues and yet the Truth, Justice and Reconciliation Commission will do exactly the same thing. The KNCHR will be doing the same thing. Over and above that, our religious institutions are also doing the same thing. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, if you look at the objects of this Commission, you will realise that it is going to do a lot of work that is very much analysis orientated. Like many commissions that have been set up in this country, we are going to get paralysed by analysis. In this country, we like analyzing. We set up commissions to analyze why I am short and why another person is tall. We set up commissions to understand all manner of strange and unimportant things. As much as it may be necessary, it is not important to set up a commission for every single thing. It is important for us to deal with issues of ethnic relations in this country. Is the Commission an answer? I do not think so. If you actually look at the Kriegler Commission that is going on, we have been actually looking at the way people have been reacting and the theatrics that have been going on there. My fear is that if we are not careful, this Commission is going to replicate exactly what we are seeing 1650 PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES July 3, 2008 in the Kriegler Commission where every community is competing to outdo each other by saying which one is smarter than the other or who is better than the other. The other reason I am not very persuaded about the setting up of this Commission is that, as a country, we are now trying to tighten our economic belts and yet this Commission, as an hon. Member has indicated, will be dealing with a budget of, at least, in terms of salaries, not less than Kshs4 million. It is important for us to create jobs. Is this the best way to create jobs? No, it is not. In any event the jobs we are seeking to create are those ones amongst the poorer cadres. The lower cadres are the ones that seek jobs and they are not likely to sit in this Commission. Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, I want to go back to the issue of substance. What we need is a substantive law that deals with issues that divide us as a nation. When hon. Mungatana was speaking, he referred to the Race Relations Act of the UK. I also want us to look at the Equality Act of the same country. That is the line along which we should be looking. If you look at that Act, it has sections--- I know that currently under the Constitution of Kenya, especially under Section 82, we actually outlaw discrimination on different grounds. If you look at the Equality Act of the UK, it gives you very clear standards, for example, under what circumstances do you consider that a person has been discriminatory. That is what we are actually looking at in a substantive law. We want a law that is going to tell us that if you behave in this and that manner, then it is considered discriminatory. We do not want a law that is merely setting up a Commission without giving us flesh. What I would want us to look at is not just the laws, but also policies that divide us as a country. Many speakers before me have alluded to the issue of the quota system. When I went to school, the quota system did not apply. Therefore, we all had opportunity to go to any school in any part of this country. I have actually been learning within the last one year or so, what tribes or ethnic communities some of my friends come from. I did not know that before. However, my younger siblings know exactly where everybody else comes from because we have actually divided this country into ethnic cocoons. If you were born in Rusinga Island, you go to school in Rusinga Island and we will soon be asking for a university in Rusinga Island and you well dwell there. For you as a person who comes from Rusinga Island, you will probably think that the Kikuyus are persons from Mars. If you meet them, you will probably think that they are unidentified flying objects. We need to deal with this quota system. Still under our education system, there is the issue of the medium of instruction. You will realise that in rural areas, from Class One to Class Three, the medium of instruction is mother tongue. Those kids speak to their parents in mother tongue. When they go to school, the medium of instruction is still mother tongue yet in schools in town, kids speak in English and Kiswahili. Not only is this discriminatory, but it furthers the ethnic divide that is a problem in this country. We must deal with this problem now and not tomorrow. Finally, I would like to speak about the title of this Bill. We need to rethink the title of this Bill. When we have it as the National Ethnic and Race Relations Commission Bill, because of the most immediate past we have gone through, this title sort of has a negative connotation. So, we would like to use more positive words like the ones used in the Ministry of Justice, National Cohesion and Constitutional Affairs. Perhaps, we could use positive words like cohesion instead of talking about ethnicity. Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, very finally, I would like to speak on certain sections of the Bill, very specific sections that I will propose for amendment. If you look at the establishment, powers and functions of the Commission, in essence the power will still lie with the President in terms of appointment and dismissals. I think this should reside totally with Parliament. I also have a problem with Clause 6(2)(c), where we are talking of a person who shall not be qualified to be appointed as a commissioner if the person is actively involved in the affairs of a July 3, 2008 PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES 1651 political party. If we want to exclude such persons, we have to define what \"actively involved\" means. I might have been heard in the streets saying that I support PNU. Does that mean that I am actively involved in a party? I want to say, again, especially in terms of the tenure of the commissioner, that if you look at this Bill carefully, it is much easier to remove the Commission's Chair than to remove other members. So I would like us to be looking at that when we are looking at this proposed law. Since I sit in the Departmental Committee on Administration of Justice and Legal Affairs, I will be putting my recommendations to that Committee. However, my concern is that the suggestions, or recommendations, we have are substantive and may actually require that we withdraw the Bill and re-draft it, not that it is poorly crafted, but it actually leaves out very substantive issues of concern. With those few remarks, I beg to support."
}