HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept
{
"id": 282036,
"url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/282036/?format=api",
"text_counter": 435,
"type": "speech",
"speaker_name": "Mr. Mungatana",
"speaker_title": "",
"speaker": {
"id": 185,
"legal_name": "Danson Buya Mungatana",
"slug": "danson-mungatana"
},
"content": "Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, we need to come up with an innovation in which a political party or shades of opinion within political parties can propose names which should be taken as names properly proposed for purposes of making sure that we have these nine people, three of whom shall be at least of either gender. Also, the nine of them should reflect regional, ethnic balance and all these other issues that are required by the Treaty for the Establishment of the African Community. If we do not come up with properly innovated rules that will meet this criterion, we are going to have a problem. If you look at the parties that form the House now and the movement that has gone on, if we do not come up with an innovative way in which Members of Parliament can act within, we may end up having a hang situation in which this House will bring a problem to not only the Kenyan people but also EALA itself. I was going to propose that we should have a loser definition of who can nominate into EALA, so that if five or six political parties or shades of opinion or political caucus within the House agree that they could nominate “X” or “Y” candidate, then we should accept that kind of arrangement so that we can encourage discussion. Rule No.4 which also sets out a particular format in the Schedule should also be looked at again, so that we can formulate it in such a way that we can accommodate as many Members of Parliament as possible. If you look down at Rule No.5 and go all the way to the proposed Rule No.10, including the formula that has been proposed, it is like a cut and paste situation from other East African Parliaments where they seem to have a steadier way of identification with political parties. These rules, if we put them in the Uganda Parliament, for example, they would work perfectly. If you take them to the Parliament of Tanzania, they would work perfectly. But with the kind of movement and confusion or lack of clear identification within the House now before the next general election, we are going to have a problem. I am finding these rules a bit too restrictive. So, we should find a way in which we can all think together and put some clauses that will allow discussions. The worst that can happen is for us as a Parliament to nominate, vote and then that list is rejected because of lack of ethnic, regional and gender balance. Then we are told that we do not have a proper list before the EALA. I, therefore, want to invite the House that we take these rules a little more seriously when they come for Third Reading. Let us think again together because it seems to me that the Committee has brought in as much as what other East African Community members have and failed to recognize the uniqueness of the composition of Parliament in Kenya as we approach the general election. We need to be alive to the fact that it was Kenya that delayed the last inauguration of EALA by almost a year. Let us not do that by placing rules which will make it difficult for us to arrive at a quick solution. I propose that a number of amendments be brought to allow for flexibility to show that it should be possible just the way nominees have been brought to this House by the Executive, which is divided between the ODM side of the Coalition and the PNU side of the Coalition, and we have passed them in this House. It should be possible for us to create rules that will allow for discussions to take place bipartisan and then these names to come to this House to be voted by acclamation, so that we do not have unnecessary problems. Even the way they have defined voting in these rules, they have left out the fact that there could be a list that can be agreed upon within Parliament after lengthy discussion and then it sails unopposed. The requirement that people who want to be Members of EALA should go around canvassing the Members of Parliament, in itself does not sound nice. It can also be an avenue for bad publicity to the Members of Parliament. When you say that these candidates can canvass for support from individual Members of Parliament, the next headline that you will have in the Press is that so and so was elected because he was able to pay his way through. Whether this is true or false, this dent will stick on this House. So, I am urging a situation where we make rules that will not expose Members of this House to ridicule. Let us think again about these rules. If political parties have agreed, whether as political parties or as caucuses of political parties, let us not have unnecessary voting here where individual Members again come to cast vote. Let us have it like something that is already agreed upon, so that we do it like we have done in all other vetting processes that have required approval of the House. If we leave these rules the way they have been proposed, they may work for Uganda and other countries in EALA, but they can bring a lot of shame to this House. Just the other day, it was a hot topic in this House when Members went to consult in different camps and there were very strange allegations put before this House. I was not there, but I do not believe that Members can be subjected to ridicule because of such little money that was said to have been given in those meetings. I understood that certain issues were being explained, but the matter ended up in this House and some Members were saying that people were being given money. There was no corroboration of those things but it stuck in the minds of Kenyans that Members of Parliament were paid so that some legislation could pass in this House."
}