Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 268186,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/268186/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 575,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Dr. Machage",
    "speaker_title": "The Assistant Minister for Roads",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 179,
        "legal_name": "Wilfred Gisuka Machage",
        "slug": "wilfred-machage"
    },
    "content": " Mr. Speaker, Sir, I request the House to be sober and thoughtful as we deliberate on this issue. It will affect some communities. Maybe, the excitement that may have arisen from the previous report has spoilt the mood of hon. Members to look and decide positively or negatively. The IEBC does not work in a vacuum. There is an Act that governs its work and, indeed, I may not agree with Mr. Kajwang that we are not supposed to enrich their report. If you look at Schedule V of the Act, Part 6, it says: “The Commission shall take into account the resolutions of the National Assembly to prepare the final report.” It means that we have to enrich the report for it to be taken. Let us not abdicate our duty as a House. We will be registered in bad history that a report came from IEBC and we had a constitutional mandate to look at it, correct the mistakes and send a report to them to consider. By approving the report that has been laid on the table today by the relevant Committee, we are not ordering anybody to adopt it. The IEBC will have the mandate to adopt that report. Let us not be governed by emotions but look at this. If you look keenly, the Act clearly indicates that we are supposed to do that. It orders IEBC to listen to us. Section 26 of the Act says: “Except as provided by the Constitution, the Commission shall observe the principle of public participation and requirement for the consultation with stakeholders.” We are a major stakeholder! We have to give issues so that they can be taken into consideration by the Commission. I may not really share the views of those people who are saying that we have no mandate to change the number of wards. If you look at Section 89(3), it creates the number of constituencies. But the number of wards is governed by Section 89(3) of our Constitution which says: “The review of the same can be done any time periodically.” They did not give us the timeframe! The period can even be the five days as suggested in this House. Let us be mindful of the resolutions and make amendments that may be raised in this House, so that we can make this report as perfect as possible to be accepted by the people. If somebody has a view, please submit an amendment instead of opposing the report in total. Thank you!"
}