Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 27696,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/27696/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 230,
    "type": "other",
    "speaker_name": "",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "Clause 46 talks about the recall of Members of Parliament. It needs to be re- phrased and to be less vague than it is. To begin with, I want to urge the Minister to look carefully at Clause 46(2), on recall. I hope that my colleagues are listening to this because the Clause says that a Member of Parliament may be recalled on any of the following grounds namely mismanagement of public resources - this is alright; desertion of the electorate without reasonable cause including continued absence from the constituency or county. What does this mean? Will there be a register in the constituency or county where every hon. Member must sign so that he or she could show his or her presence? Most hon. Members live in Nairobi. What does “continued absence from the constituency” mean? If you go to your constituency, that is, Imenti Central and conduct a church service and come back to Nairobi, is that enough to be in your constituency? Is there a register somewhere that you must sign to show your presence? That is unacceptable. Another point is failure to adequately represent views, opinions and proposals of the electorate to the relevant House. Who will gauge the adequacy of your representation of views? Where is the gauge that shows that the views that you are representing are adequate? Your adequacy may not be my adequacy. Do we have a barometer to measure what is adequate in what we represent to this House or to any Committee? The answer is “No”. I would like to tell the Minister that this is a superfluous provision and it should get out of the Bill. Another point is failure to participate in the work of the relevant committees of the relevant House in which you are a Member. If you are a Member of a Committee of the House and you constantly go to the Committee, sit there, observe and vote, is that a failure to participate in the Committee meetings? Is that enough for a recall or must you go to the committee and become a nuisance by talking on everything, however irrelevant to appear to be participating? Again, this does not make sense. Another aspect is failure to appraise the electorate on the working of the relevant house and decisions passed by the House. There is no constitutional requirement for any hon. Member to go to the Constituency to tell his or her constituency what Parliament has passed. So, where are we getting this? Why are we visiting on Members of Parliament issues that are not constitutional? Is it enough for a Member to be recalled? Where are we drawing authority that when we pass anything here, one must go back to the electorate and explain to them? Where is the forum for that? Do you own a radio to use to explain to your constituents what you passed in Parliament? Clause 46(2) should be deleted from the Bill. Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, on the threshold for recall in Clause 46(3)(b), I urge the Minister to raise the threshold for those who will sign the recall requirement to 50 per cent plus one and not 30 per cent. What the Bill also needs to indicate is that in case of a recall and there are proceedings; who bears the costs? The mischief maker must be made to bear the costs. The Bill does not say that when you go through the proceedings of recall, who will bear the costs. I want to discourage busy"
}