Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 241638,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/241638/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 251,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Mr. M. Kilonzo",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 47,
        "legal_name": "Mutula Kilonzo",
        "slug": "mutula-kilonzo"
    },
    "content": "Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, the fact of the matter is that these words were inserted out of a realization that the country was being subjected to an archaic system of service of election petitions. These two words have caused an enormous interpretation furore in the courts, so much so that it led to the second seven-judge bench of the Court of Appeal. The first one was in relation to Mr. Tony Gachoka's case. Even when you read the judgement, you will realise that even the Judiciary itself, is facing enormous difficulties in coming to terms with the fact that our electoral law, with regard to resolution of disputes arising from elections, is extremely 2274 PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES July 20, 2006 archaic. I would have been happier if the Attorney-General were, in fact, to bring the entire Act here, so that we amend it seriously. First of all, once we remove these words, we will be surprised that some people will even attempt to serve this petition by pinning it on someone's door even if he or she is in India. Some of them may attempt to serve this petition on you by merely leaving it at your gate and saying that the bodyguards could not allow them to get into your house. This is an extremely dangerous provision which we must not insert. It is far better if the Act were brought here first. Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am surprised that there are election petitions still pending in courts three-and-a-half years after the current Government came into power. The dispute resolution mechanism of this country with regard to election petitions is so dilapidated that time has come for us to look at this law, to make a provision that election petitions must be resolved within a reasonable time. We also notice that after the recent elections in Uganda, the election petition challenging President Museveni's election to presidency has already been disposed of. We are looking for an opportunity to make sure that we can have an electoral law that ensures respect as to the nature of election petitions is maintained. What do I mean? Like a divorce petition, an election petition is a personal thing. It is not a community thing. The judges have interpreted this time and again to say that once a Member of Parliament is elected, his challenge of that petition must be respected. Therefore, if we are challenging his petition, we should use only a mechanism for serving him, that ensures that he is aware from the word \"go\" that an election petition has been filed against him. That brings me to the second issue which is the number of judges. The time when we should merely be increasing the number of judges has come and gone. The time to dictate that each district in this country should have a High Court station, is now. That would eliminate the problem that my learned friend, Senior Counsel, the Attorney-General is having; having to work out the arithmetic. If I were to ask him what formula he has used to arrive at 50 High Court Judges and 14 Court of Appeal Judges, he will be hardly able to tell us. We are talking about administration of justice. My position remains, that once this Parliament determines that a particular area of the country is entitled to have a district, then a station for a judge should be opened and he should be appointed forthwith."
}