Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 478142,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/478142/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 350,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Chepkong’a",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 1154,
        "legal_name": "Samuel Kiprono Chepkonga",
        "slug": "samuel-kiprono-chepkonga"
    },
    "content": "1. That the Petition was vague in allegations about the Commission and not the Chairperson or other members of the Commission and that it is not supported by any cogent evidence that warrants individual response. 2. The Petition as drawn does not satisfy the threshold envisaged by Article 251 of the Constitution. 3. The Petitioners seek to vilify the Chairperson and members of the Commission for having performed their constitutional role by announcing results of the peoples’ choice. 4. The Petitioner is questioning the legitimacy and legality of all elected and nominated leaders in the country in both the national Government and county government. By implication, the Petitioner seeks to demand for a fresh General Election by mischievously legitimizing the last General Election through this Petition. Those are the responses I am reading; it is not my response. We will come to the Committee’s findings. 5. The Petitioners’ ground on petition concerning the procurement of Electronic Voter Identification (EVID) and the BVR is without any legal basis as the member’s role in procurement is limited to approval of the budget and procurement plan. The Commission’s procurement was as advised by the Public Procurement Oversight Authority (PPOA). In the attachment thereat, you will see a letter dated 12th May, 2011 written by a member of staff from IEBC seeking clarification from PPOA as to whether the commissioners can participate directly in the procurement of items and equipment in IEBC. The PPOA, in their letter dated 24th May, 2010 responded. These documents were presented to us by the IEBC and they are attached on our Report. PPOA clearly stated that it was not the business of the Commissioners to participate in the procurement of anything in the IEBC and that their role is merely restricted to the approval of budget and the procurement plan. 6. On the documents presented by Petitioners and IEBC during the Presidential Petition, the commissioners submitted that all the documents were considered in their totality by the Supreme Court in the Presidential election and by extension all other elections that were held at the same time were found to have been fair, free and credible. They supplied us with the Order of the Supreme Court which is dated 30th March, 2013 in considering petitions numbers three, four and five of 2013. 7. The finding by the Supreme Court on the voter register and compilation does not impute any culpability on the part of the commissioners in the registers used. 8. The Commission has so far conducted 15 by-elections as a result of successful petitions. All but one of the by-election results returned the same candidates elected on 4th March, 2013, thereby vindicating the Commission’s work. 9. The IEBC is the source and custodian of all authentic election data and the commissioners’ attention has not been drawn to any discrepancies by anybody or organization in the reports it has established. 10. The Commission is constitutionally mandated under Article 138(3) of the Constitution to tally and verify the count of votes in the polling stations and declare the results. 11. The Commission received observer reports from the AU, the Commonwealth Observer Group, the EU, Carter Centre Election Observer group, among others that had The electronic version of the Official Hansard Report is for information purposesonly. A certified version of this Report can be obtained from the Hansard Editor."
}