Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 493078,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/493078/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 75,
    "type": "other",
    "speaker_name": "",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "handing over the reigns of power means because he has been close to those places. It is not an easy thing, but he did that. However, I want to say a few things on this in seconding this Motion. One, I had opined in my column, the previous week, that, in fact, His Excellency should not go to The Hague. That was my view. But listening to the President as he made the Address, one thing that struck me was his humility and ability to come forward in front of the nation and own the problem saying: - “That is my case; it is my responsibility and my problem.” Accepting to go out there to the court as a citizen of Kenya and not as the President of Kenya clearly created an understanding in some of us. We understand his position, painful as it may have been and earnest desire to clear his name, which actually was the main factor that was driving his decision to travel. Mr. Temporary Speaker, Sir, as leaders in this House or Parliament and other institutions of leadership, there is a time that we have to accept the national calling. As leaders, we must stand up. The purported boycott of that special sitting by our friends in the CORD really undermined their status as national leaders, in my view, although, it had no effect since the Joint Sitting took place. I think it was not an appropriate decision, because this was a matter that was creating anxiety in the nation and required direction. It was important for leaders to attend and listen to His Excellency the President, because he was addressing both Houses of Parliamant as the President of the Republic of Kenya, even if you disagreed with the position. However, quite a number of us have bones to pick with The Hague as an institution. Personally, I was not in Parliament when the decision was made; that let us not be vague, go to The Hague. The strange thing in our country is that we sometimes take positions without considering what we are saying. Last year, for example, some members of the Jubilee Coalition were saying that we must boycott The Hague, and there was the build up to the African Union (AU) and United Nations (UN). Our friends in the CORD were insisting that we must go to The Hague. Early this month, when the President said that he wanted to go to The Hague, it was the other way round. Our friends in the CORD now said that he was taking our sovereignty to The Hague and that he should not go. There is a problem with regard to our principles as leaders. Some of us have been consistent, I personally agree that Africans countries were right in 13th October, 2013 when they made that decision that no sitting head of state should appear before The Hague, for the simple reason that it affects the constitutional order and stability of member states. I am going to quote that statement that the Africans countries made on that day. They said. “To safeguard constitutional order, stability and integrity of member states, no charges shall be commenced or continued before any international court, against any serving African Union Head of State.”That message was clear. The electronic version of the Senate Hansard Report is for information purposes only. A certified version of this Report can be obtained from the Hansard Editor, Senate."
}