HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept
{
"id": 266985,
"url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/266985/?format=api",
"text_counter": 319,
"type": "speech",
"speaker_name": "Mr. Mungatana",
"speaker_title": "",
"speaker": {
"id": 185,
"legal_name": "Danson Buya Mungatana",
"slug": "danson-mungatana"
},
"content": "On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir. I would like to state, first of all and very quickly--- I have three points because I know other people will be raising that contrary to Standing Order No.47(3) if you look at this Motion clearly, you will find that it is calling for the commitment of public funds for which no provision has been made in the Annual Estimates as adopted by the National Assembly. Throughout, we have known, and it has been proposed by the IEBC that the wards they were going to work with were 1,450. Indeed, the IEBC has been preparing and has prepared the National Estimates in accordance with those wards that they proposed. My simple point of order is; on what basis then can we debate a Motion that is seeking to commit an extra 61 wards which will mean extra public funds which have not been provided for in the National Estimates? Secondly, if you look at The County Governments Bill that we debated here on Friday and passed, on the Third Reading, there was an attempt to amend the number of wards from 1,450 up by 60 extra wards. That amendment was defeated on the Floor of this House. This is, therefore, taking the time of this House to discuss a matter that is actioning the House in vain. It is not possible for this House to implement an increment on the wards when, in fact, the law that we passed at the Third Reading clearly states that it is only 1,450 wards that will be available. Finally, before I sit down, I wanted to state a quick constitutional issue. If you look at the provisions of Article of 248, and I would like to quickly turn there, you will find that it lists down the constitutional commissions that are independent and cannot work under direction of any individual or authority. The IEBC is also part of those Commissions. Article 249(2) (b) says that the commissions and the holders of independent offices are independent and not subject to direction or control of any person or authority. If you look at the recommendation that the Chairman has put forward, which is the last recommendation he made---- Very quickly on page 45 where it is written “End”, if you turn with me there, you will see that at the very end, the recommendation that the Chairman has read says that this Report and all the written memoranda received from the public be forwarded to the IEBC for implementation and further action. If this House carries a resolution that says that this recommendation that the Chairman has read will go, therefore, for implementation, this flies across the face of this constitutional provision that says that not any authority, including the authority of Parliament, and not any individual including any Member of Parliament or even the President who is the highest authority or the Prime Minister in the shared Executive, can direct an independent Commission. So, we cannot take the time of this House debating an issue that is in vain. We cannot adopt this Report the way it is. You cannot direct the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) to carry out its mandate. The most that could have happened is for us to just note, but we cannot direct that these recommendations, which are still very contentious, should be implemented by IEBC and take further action. How on earth can that happen?"
}