HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept
{
"id": 220185,
"url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/220185/?format=api",
"text_counter": 291,
"type": "speech",
"speaker_name": "Ms. Karua",
"speaker_title": "The Minister for Justice and Constitutional Affairs",
"speaker": {
"id": 166,
"legal_name": "Martha Wangari Karua",
"slug": "martha-karua"
},
"content": " Mr. Speaker, Sir, all I am saying is this: If you look at the design of the Rules tabled today, they will ensure that no party brings names of nominees without calling its PPG to endorse the decision and to propose the names. It means that this process is intended to make the entire Parliament participate in the names that we shall later debate. This is not what happened last time. People went and sat down with their favourites and came up with lists. This is a Parliamentary process and it must involve Parliamentarians. We do not know secretary-generals here, nor do we know chairpersons. In Parliament, we know the party leader as the person who is empowered by hon. Members to lead that group in Parliament. That is why, like Mr. Obwocha stated, a dispute in the Social Democratic Party (SDP) was solved by the House Business Committee by recognising the voice of SDP's PPG as to who would be their party leader in Parliament. That was in 1998. Mr. Speaker, Sir, moving on to another point, is it odd for a law to provide where disputes are solved? I say no! It is, indeed, the norm where you are talking of election procedures, you know very well that disputes are likely to result. We must, therefore, provide for dispute resolution. Even in simple club rules, you cannot have the issue of elections without having the issue of how to solve disputes. The rules must provide for that. It is simple. Being an election to a Parliament, the procedure is to go to the High Court, just the same way those with petitions in the National Assembly go to the High Court. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that provision. Let us not play with words. Mr. Speaker, Sir, I must say that I have read the ruling of the East African Court of Justice May 23, 2007 PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES 1591 (EACJ). The court was very careful. It knew that it has no jurisdiction over the National Assembly of Kenya. It, therefore, was not and did not attempt to oust our nominees. It only said that our Rules did not comply with the Treaty in so far as elections were concerned. It, therefore, said the National Assembly must elect. Had there been a question put, the case would have failed. So, those who are beating their chests about the case, please, note: You only won on one point; that the question was not put, and not on the process. This National Assembly is entitled---And Article 50 of the Treaty is very clear. We are entitled to determine the procedure by which we nominate. But we must elect. So, the question must be put. That is what we are here for. If we really want to be true to Kenya, we cannot only say rules are good when they include the names of either our relatives or our fellow villagers. We must like the rules even when they approve a person we do not like. Our members served in the East Africa Legislative Assembly (EALA) for five years, courtesy of the rules that were ousted. Some of those Members returned to the EACJ to say that these rules are bad. For what reason? Because they could not see their names. We must be fair to everybody and ask ourselves: Is it reasonable for you to expect to be nominated twice when there are other people who should have a chance? Is it reasonable to expect that? Are we talking of fairness? We are very fond of accusing each other of all manner of things. Let us asses ourselves and our behaviour. The Treaty says \"shades of opinion\". It talks about inclusivity. Is it not good when we look at Kenya, we look at the nomination of Members of Parliament and then we look at the opposite side, the East African Legislative Assembly (EALA), so that each province may have some nominees? Why would we want to monopolise everything? The whole case and all about these rules is about selfish interests of individuals. It is not about Kenya. It is not about the rules being bad. Mr. Speaker, Sir, I want to urge hon. Members to reject the amendment and to support the rules as they are. Let us hurry up and take our Members to the EALA. Let us strengthen the Assembly, and for those who have tasted the Assembly once, be grateful that your country Kenya gave you a chance to serve and for goodness sake, allow somebody else to have the chance. That is what inclusivity is all about. Mr. Speaker, Sir, with those very many remarks, I beg to support the Motion as it is and to oppose the amendment."
}