Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 493080,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/493080/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 77,
    "type": "other",
    "speaker_name": "",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "They were coming from the background of our freedom fighters. They looked at Kwame Nkrumah, Nyerere, Nasser and others, who had raised concern at that early time in our Independence about undermining the sovereign equality of states. This is why the whole idea of pulling Presidents before the international court is not the right decision, and we should, as nations, say no. Again, it is the lack of a level playing field. You cannot have an international court that wants to indict criminals and exclude certain countries. We have seen what happened in Israel and Gaza a few months ago. They decimated an entire society day and night. Thousands are killed and nobody would ever stand up and say: - Let us take Israel to the International Criminal Court (ICC). When Motions were moved in the United States of America (USA) to try and get former president George Bush before an international court, none other than the head of state said: “Forget it; it will not happen during my watch.” They did not allow it. They even went into an agreement with that court that not even a soldier of the USA - forget about the president - can ever be held before an international court. Forget about other European countries and Asia; look at what is happening in Syria, Egypt and all those other countries. Six out of the eight cases before that court today are from African countries. Never mind that in 2010, our National Assembly may have faulted and said that the ICC was better. We may have faulted. They say it is only a fool who does not change his mind. At the time, we thought the ICC was better but later on, we said no, it was a wrong decision. This is because there is no level playing field in that court. It is clearly a political institution to try and man leadership sometimes in these parts of the world. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, I want to also comment on an issue that has been raised with regard to that Speech where the President said: “Look, it is not the presidency of this country that is on trial, it is Uhuru Kenyatta, and I am going there as Uhuru Kenyatta.” Why? Because when he was campaigning, he said it was a personal or individual challenge and not a national one. That issue is now being raised all the time. There is a sense when you look at this thing. We say that once you go into a position of leadership in public service, there is no private life. This is why in every country - from the USA to this one - when you are in that kind of a position, every aspect of your life is under scrutiny, because there is no distinction between what is private and what is personal. I remember a couple of years ago when President Kibaki was forced to go before the national television to announce that he had only one wife. Why was it an issue yet it was a personal matter? It is because it was raised in Parliament back then. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, when Kenyans decided to vote for the two people who had been indicted before the ICC in 2013, what was the significance of that vote? They knew the two had personal challenges; they were wanted in the ICC; they had already been indicted but they went ahead and voted for those people. 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."
}