HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept
{
"id": 225161,
"url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/225161/?format=api",
"text_counter": 223,
"type": "speech",
"speaker_name": "Mr. Kajwang",
"speaker_title": "",
"speaker": {
"id": 164,
"legal_name": "Gerald Otieno Kajwang",
"slug": "otieno-kajwang"
},
"content": "I cannot say more than that! Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, there is something else that I was discussing with Archbishop Ondiek because he has personal experience. One time, he won an election petition but because somebody handled some ballot papers - I do not know whether they were 23 or 24 - they found him guilty of an election offence. So, he did not participate in the subsequent election. This Bill at Article 9(5) says:- \"A person who has been deprived of a right to vote---\" Maybe, you committed an election offence and now you have been told that you have no right to vote or a person who has been deprived of the right to be elected to Parliament, like Archbishop Ondiek was deprived temporarily, cannot belong to a party. What kind of provision is that? It says then that immediately Archbishop Ondiek was deprived, he should have ceased to be a member of KANU. That is what it means! How can you bring such a provision? This is the most oppressive thing I have ever seen. You would have done that with Mr. Kombo. I was his lawyer when he had that problem with Silulu or something like that, yet he remained an hon. Member of the Executive of FORD(K). Mr. Ngei also had that problem. Does it stop one from being a member of a political party merely because a court of competent jurisdiction has found you guilty of an election offence? We can look at that again. I am sure that is something that can be looked at. Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, then it says the following on amendments to a constitution of a party because the constitution of the party is its Bible. Article 11(3) states that:- \"Notwithstanding the provision of the constitution or rules of a political party, a political party shall, for the purpose of complying with the order specified under subsection (2), convene a meeting as is required by its constitution or rules, for amending its constitution or rules---\" That is fine because we always amend our constitutions so long as we meet the two-thirds requirement of the delegates conference or whatever. \"---or if the constitution of rules make no provision for such amendment---\" How can you have a constitution that does not provide for its amendment? That should be a constitution written by God on a stone that cannot provide for its amendment. So, let us just delete that quickly. That, you cannot have a constitution that does not provide for its amendment. It would be an incompetent constitution! Let us not even add those too many words. Just delete that part that suggests that a political party can have a constitution that does not provide for its amendment. It should, just like the national Constitution must, provide for its amendment. Even the American one provides for its amendment. Then there is another one; Article 12 which talks of the name, abbreviation, colours, - orange and oranges - because that is what we were fighting over just the other day. Let me tell you; if you all build KANU together and you invest in it heavily, not in money terms but in recruitment and all that, and KANU were to break into two or three parties, or irreconcilable segments, would you then say that if someone registered himself as New KANU, the other as authentic KANU, the other as FORD(A) and yet another as FORD(K), that those are two names which are too similar? Or they resemble each other so that they would be registered? That would be wrong! What about NARC, NARC(K) and NARC(A), sooner or later? They are going to be many. The point is this: That when parties break, I think it is good sense, like the Attorney-General ruled in the case of FORD; that, \"please add something that distinguishes you.\" However, because you have all invested in FORD, you can all use it because it is capital, if you think so. It is capital that you have put together. Companies have similar names. People can have one company here and another one with a similar name, but with a hyphen or a suffix, say, plc, added to it and so on and so forth. So, there is nothing wrong with a company calling itself 2000 and another one calling itself 2008. That is not a resemblance as to make members not to know where they belong. So, even that may be April 19, 2007 PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES 811 misused by the Registrar. Unless we say that this thing be domiciled at the Commission, which we shall make sure is independent, in the amendments that we shall bring, we are in trouble. The Minister will just tell the Registrar that, \"Although you are at the Commission and even though you have operational autonomy, we are telling you that you do this and that.\" The Registrar will not have any constitutional cover which can give him the security of tenure. That, surely, is the beginning of trouble. Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, I wanted to say something on money because there is something about it in this Bill. First of all, let us start with where the money is coming from. It is said in this Bill that, \"---the money as will be given by the Minister for Finance.\" First of all, I am not so sure that the Minister for Finance is a permanent feature. Sooner or later we may have somebody who is a Minister for Finance---"
}