Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 478147,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/478147/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 355,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Chepkong’a",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 1154,
        "legal_name": "Samuel Kiprono Chepkonga",
        "slug": "samuel-kiprono-chepkonga"
    },
    "content": "Hon. Speaker, hon. Abuya Abuya claimed that, up to date, he has not been told the outcome of his request that he made to IEBC and which, the IEBC had agreed to; that he would be considered for nomination. In the Petition, it is premised as required by Article 251 of the Constitution. Let me go fast in the interest of time, so that we can deal with all these issues. I have stated the facts that support the Petition. I have also stated the response of the IEBC and I have also stated the supporting facts that were presented to the Committee. Unfortunately, we were being invited to go to the Supreme Court to fish out the documents that were relied upon by the Supreme Court. The law is very clear. The Petitioner is expected to present all the supporting evidence. It is not incumbent upon the Committee to go on a fishing expedition of supporting documents of the Petitioner. I would like to move quickly to the issues that were raised in the Petition that was filed at the Supreme Court. That is because we were invited to consider the documents that were filed thereon. Again, as you know, the Supreme Court has issued its judgment in its entirety. They gave their order as required by law and in Petition No.3, basically, the issues that revolved around it were as to whether the IEBC in tallying the votes should have included the rejected votes and whether the inclusion of the rejected votes had a prejudicial effect on the percentage of votes won by President Uhuru. That, in itself, had no relevance to the Petition because the Petitioner was not claiming anything with respect to the rejected votes. With regard to Petition No.4 of 2013 which the Committee considered to be relevant to the issues that were raised under the grounds that the Petitioner sought to rely on, we found that the grounds that the Petitioners, in Petition No.4 of 2013, had a similarity with the grounds that the Petitioner sought to rely on. For purposes of clarity and for avoidance of doubt, I would like to mention the grounds. On 16th March, 2013, petitioners Gladwel Muthoni Otieno and Siad Rajan filed a petition against the IEBC and Mr. Isaack Hassan, hon. Uhuru Kenyatta and hon. William Ruto. The petitioners averred in their petition in the Supreme Court:-"
}