HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept
{
"id": 35339,
"url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/35339/?format=api",
"text_counter": 354,
"type": "speech",
"speaker_name": "Mr. Wetangula",
"speaker_title": "",
"speaker": {
"id": 210,
"legal_name": "Moses Masika Wetangula",
"slug": "moses-wetangula"
},
"content": "Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, I also want to point out to the Minister that once funds are allocated to a party, I think the State should be interested in whether these funds are put into good use or not. If a party is raising enough funds from its membership it should be at liberty, based on its strength and support in the populace, to buy a property for the party. In the following year, they might do something else. But to limit it to 10 per cent or 25 per cent in the Act we are repealing, it is unreasonable. This is because the interests of different parties do not go together. What is important is the party to submit its accounts and the Registrar must satisfy himself or herself that the funds were well used and raise audit queries, as they call them, if the funds have not been well used. Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, the de-registration of political parties, again, should not be a matter for the Registrar. It is something so fundamental touching on the Constitution, on the issue of the right to associate and the right for people to exercise their free will in politics. If the Registrar finds that a party can be de-registered, the first thing is to issue a notice to show cause, which the Bill does not provide for. Once a notice to show cause is issued, the Registrar can then issue a further notice, that now you are going to be de-registered. The affected party should have the right to go to the Tribunal, High Court and the Supreme Court, which is the highest court that determines issues of such a fundamental nature, so that it is not just one person sitting in some office somewhere and saying: “This party is deregistered because, perhaps, it is offering a greater threat to a party that the Registrar likes or somebody has influenced somewhere.” I think this will make it a little better than what is provided for. Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, the distribution of funds, like I said, should be run by some trust so that we see more fairness. The Office of the Registrar of Political Parties is now independent, but I would want to see some linkage with the Electoral Commission, particularly when it comes to assessing how many votes a party garnered. How do we get the Registrar to work with the Electoral Commission so that it is not fictitious figures that are given out and when arguments arise the Registrar has no way of accessing the books of the Electoral Commission, which have nothing to do with the Registrar who is independent? You will end up having problems. Also, where there are coalitions, if it is going to go the way it is drafted, it is very dangerous to say if this is a package of a coalition, that the funds for this package will just be given as one. You will end up with serious difficulties. I think before the Registrar disburses the funds, the coalition must sit down and agree beforehand and say: “This is our strength and this is our strength. This is our percentage and this is our percentage. If you are giving us this kind of money, then it will end up being divided between the parties.” But when you have a party that ends up being shortchanged, like FORD(K), then you have difficulties. This is because we do not want also to be litigants; all the time running to the Tribunal or court, when things can be defined very clearly in the law to avoid these kinds of situations, such that where you have FORD(K), NARC(K) and the PNU Coalition teams, we sit down, agree and all sign and forward to the Registrar. The Registrar will exactly know which money belongs to who within that basket; then you will be helping the parties to benefit from what is a public fund, because this is not a discretionary fund. It is a public fund and if you have had an input in contributing to the strength of a coalition, then you are entitled to be there. Article 35, in my view, has no place in this Bill. The Political Parties Liaison Committee should be an informal gathering of political parties. I do not know why we should institutionalize it. This is a situation where parties send their executive directors to meet and talk to like minded people and so on. If we institutionalize it, and you say it must be at the county and at the national level, without criteria you will find that in some counties, parties that cannot even raise 1,000 votes will insist that they must sit in the Liaison Committee just to raise numbers and become a nuisance for nothing. I think we should leave it as a coalition of the willing so that the liaison committee sits as and when there is an issue to deal with. They become very active when elections are around the corner or when they are arguing about money and other things. However, when you institutionalize it, you are bound to give them a registry, secretariat and expenses that will eat into the very funds that we want to grow democracy. I think we do not need Article 35 at all. With regard to Article 38 – and Ms. Karua talked about it and I want to talk about it in passing - I would like to urge the Minister to ensure Clause 38(2) reads: “Appeals shall lie in the decision of the Tribunal or the High Court on points of law and facts. Further appeals on points of law only should lie with the Supreme Court”. So, the Supreme Court---"
}