HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept
{
"id": 224031,
"url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/224031/?format=api",
"text_counter": 265,
"type": "speech",
"speaker_name": "Dr. Kibunguchy",
"speaker_title": "The Assistant Minister for Health",
"speaker": {
"id": 294,
"legal_name": "Enoch Wamalwa Kibunguchy",
"slug": "enoch-kibunguchy"
},
"content": "Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to turn my attention to Part IV of the Bill. Part IV, Clause 21 establishes the Political Parties Fund. We have been agitating for that for a very long time, so that parties are not seen as extensions of certain individuals who have been blessed with money, either rightly or wrongly acquired. That is something that I support. I would like to concur with those who have said that it would have been very good for this Bill to give the percentage of the money that will be taken from the Consolidated Fund and given to Political Parties Fund. If we leave it at the discretion of the Minister for Finance, that would create uncertainties. Political parties will not plan very well. I think we need a certain percentage from the Consolidated Fund, just like the CDF that has 2.5 per cent. Maybe, we could start off with 1 per cent to go to that Fund. I also believe that, as we are looking at the minimum reforms, that Fund needs to be anchored in the Constitution. That way, any future President will not play around with it, as long as it is in the Constitution. Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, the only other part that I would like to talk about is Clause 23 (1)(F) and Clause 23(2)(a). When I read the two clauses together, they appear to be contradictory. Clause 23(1)(f) reads:- \"Not more than 10 per cent of this Fund would go for administrative expenses of the party\". Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, Clause 23(2)(a) prohibits us from using that money to April 26, 2007 PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES 989 pay, either directly or indirectly, remuneration, fees, rewards or any other benefit and so on. But when we talk about administrative expenses, we must include issues like office rent, stationery and salaries for office workers. So, those two aspects of the Bill, to me, appear to be contradictory. Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, Clause 23 (3) talks about how that Fund will be distributed. Sub-clause 3(a) is very clear. It says that 25 per cent shall be distributed equally among political parties. Now, I have a lot of misgivings about that aspect. If we are going to distribute that money equally among political parties, as my colleagues have said again and again, it is going to encourage the mushrooming of political parties. In my view, I would like to strongly say that, that Fund should be strictly for parties that have shown some credibility. Parties can only show credibility by holding elections, having Members of Parliament in this House or even councillors out there. But we cannot allow those funds to go to parties that would be formed just to access that money. So, I think that 25 percent should be struck off. Let us limit that money to parties that have shown credibility. At the moment, we have more than 70 registered political parties in this country. I am very sure that, if we pass Bill the way it is, many more parties will be formed. Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would also like another aspect to be included; parties that show certain preferences. We can work out how we are going to distribute that. But we have to encourage parties to reach out to certain disadvantaged groups in this country. We have to encourage parties to reach out to, for example, the disabled. We have to encourage parties to reach out to marginalised communities. We have to encourage parties to reach out to the youth. Obviously, we have to encourage parties to reach out to the fairer sex amongst our people. So, I think a clause in that respect should be introduced. We should reward parties that have reached out to marginalised groups. If we do that, we are going to compel parties to deliberately go out there and say: \"Yes, amongst our ranks, we shall have the youth! Amongst our ranks, we shall have the disabled. Amongst our ranks, we shall have people who come from communities that can obviously not compete.\" We know very well that Kenyan politics revolves around tribes. Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, last but not least, Clause 24(3) reads:- \"Subject to Sub-section 4, no person shall, in any one year, contribute to a political party an mount, whether in cash or in kind, exceeding Kshs1 million---\" I have two issues to raise at this stage. One, I do not know what is the magic about Kshs1 million. Today, it may look like a lot of money but, perhaps, in another ten to 20 years, Kshs1 million might not be so much money. So, I really do not know the rationale or the reason for this Kshs1 million. However, more importantly, in that sub-section, they are talking about \"no persons\". They have left out organisations and groups. Are we, therefore, saying that one person cannot contribute a certain amount of money to a party but a certain group, whether it is an organised group or not, can do that? Are we saying that a certain organisation can do that? I cannot understand that. We need a little more clarity at that stage. If we are saying one person cannot but we can allow a group or an organisation to contribute in excess of that, then I have a bit of a problem. More importantly, I said that I do not understand the rationale of the Kshs1 million. In that same Clause 24(5), it says that:- \"An alien shall not directly or indirectly make a contribution.\" First of all, I know the word \"alien\" has been described. Basically what alien in this Bill is talking about is somebody who is not a citizen of this country. When you hear \"alien\" mentioned anywhere, in your memory, you start thinking about extra-terrestrial creatures. I wish we could have used a slightly more civil word than alien in this Bill. Some of the so-called aliens are our own brothers and sisters who have moved and are out there. Since our Constitution says very clearly that you cannot have dual citizenship, we have now said that those brothers and sisters, some of whom have migrated to go to the Middle East to look for bread and butter because things are slightly better there and they are good at using their feet, we now term them as aliens. I wish 990 PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES April 26, 2007 that word \"alien\" was removed from this Bill. It is a word, that to me, is unsavoury. Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, more importantly, we are increasingly realising the importance of the Diaspora. We are increasingly realising that our brothers, sisters, fathers, uncles, cousins and aunts who are out there in the Diaspora have as much stake in this country as Kenyans who live in this country. So, I think as we go about polishing this Bill, I wish that the Minister will, at least, remove the word \"alien\" from this Bill. It is better to talk about somebody who is not a citizen of this country rather than saying he an alien. However, again, look at the aspect of one of the things that we are looking into in the minimum reforms of the Constitution; it is to see whether we can have dual citizenship. If that happens, I would like that captured in the spirit of this Bill. Finally, in Part V, when we talk about General Provisions - I will go back to what I said yesterday--- Clause 28(1)(a) says:- \"Every party must keep a register of its membership.\" I have no problem with that. I think it is important that every party must keep a register of its members. However, unless these registers are shared or a forum is found for us to know that party A or party B has these members, it becomes a mute point for a party to keep a register of its members and at the same time we are saying that a member cannot belong to two parties. I will repeat what I said yesterday; I think it is important for the Office of the Registrar to have a register of members of all the political parties that are identified. That is the only way we can say that a member or an individual does not belong to two parties. Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, finally, I would like to mention something about nominations in this country. We know that most of our political parties are very opaque when it comes to internal democracy. We saw it happen during the NARC nominations in 2002. In many places, things did not go very well while in many other places we had issues of direct nominations. I hate the word \"direct nominations\" because, really, there is no justification, whatsoever, that somebody can get direct nomination and be able to disregard the wishes of the people on that ground. I wish a clause was introduced in this Bill where we try and reign in political parties that do not regard internal democracy as being important. With those few remarks, I beg to support."
}