HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept
{
"id": 49541,
"url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/49541/?format=api",
"text_counter": 455,
"type": "speech",
"speaker_name": "Dr. Mwiria",
"speaker_title": "The Assistant Minister for Higher Education, Science and Technology",
"speaker": {
"id": 190,
"legal_name": "Valerian Kilemi Mwiria",
"slug": "kilemi-mwiria"
},
"content": " Thank you, Madam Temporary Deputy Speaker. I would like to support this Bill and say, as many Members have said before, that it is an important milestone. A lot of blame of has been placed on the former Electoral Commission of Kenya (ECK) for the problems we had in 2007. I think this was not necessarily the case. The problem was not the people and the team. The problem was about the politics of the time. The politicians themselves were not very honest. Even as we blame the ECK, Kivuitu and company, politicians were busy rigging elections. They were using voters to rig and voters themselves were rigging deliberately. The problems we witnessed were prepared before 2007 as it was witnessed by the tensions that were beginning to build up in the country, long before the elections. Nevertheless, it is important that we have a credible IIEC because there came a point when it was not quite clear whether or not we could depend on their leadership. Madam Temporary Deputy Speaker, The issue of membership has been spoken about, especially relating to integrity. It is important, therefore, that we come up very quickly with a mechanism that is objective and one that is seen as not biased in terms of how we measure integrity. How do we measure integrity? Unless it is quantified, it can be played around with in the courts, Parliament and in other fora. It is not quite clear what we will use as benchmarks to decide that a person can become a judge or be involved in any election or be a member of a commission because he has passed the integrity test. Madam Temporary Deputy Speaker, in addition to the qualifications that have been listed, it is important for us also to ask for useful exposure in terms of having the experience in dealing with these kind of problems. In this regard, we can draw upon applicants from outside Kenya who have external experience related to the process. Being Information Technology (IT) compliant in this day and age when we want to use computers in terms of managing the electoral process, is crucial. It is important that many of the Commissioners, the CEO and others in the secretariat be IT compliant. It is important that they have practical experience much more than just the academic experience, with regard to the specific disciplines that are cited in the Bill. It is important and it does not need to be repeated, that we should avoid former politicians, especially going by the experience of what we saw with the Independent Interim Boundaries Review Commission (IIBRC). We know what former politicians can get us into, especially when they are clearly aligned to specific political parties. In this regard, we should target people in terms of their nationalism. We know that some people have associated with tribal alliances that are very strong to the extent that they have said that people from certain communities cannot settle in one area or the other. It is important to make it clear that such kind of people do not fit being members of a national commission that would be out there to identify and select for us people that will determine major national leadership issues. In terms of competition, I think the point about this process being competitive has been made very strongly. In this regard, therefore, we acknowledge the work that has been done by the Interim Independent Electoral Commission (IIEC). Let us also, first of all, appreciate there is a team. Given what happened in 2007, nobody will get an opportunity in this country to create a mess. Everyone would want to distinguish himself or herself. It is important that they also apply, like anybody else, if they are that good and they can, in fact, draw on that experience to convince the panel and those that will be involved in the selection process, to ensure that they pick people who have qualified for those jobs. However, I do not think it is right to reserve any positions for members, especially at a time when we are saying all positions must be filled by a competitive process. I support the separation of powers and agree that we should give a lot of powers to the Secretariat, especially if it comprises of professionals. In many ways, that would deal with the issues of how we stagger the appointments. There is politics involved in it. For example, if the appointments are staggered, it will not matter which communities are represented and so on. If we have a secretariat that is permanent and professional, we do not have to worry about whether or not the Commissioners have much executive powers- -- It should be a team effort of both the professionals and the commissioners. With regard to the professionals, the criteria must be water-tight in terms of being more active. In the past, we have had commissioners--- Although retirement has some benefits, some of them have been âtiredâ a long time that in terms of their contribution; when they go to the constituencies, they sleep halfway through the meetings because they are not really into it. So, even the commissioners and professionals that get into this, must be people who are dynamic, have exposure to analyze situations and make recommendations based much more on professional judgment as opposed to whether or not, they are close to any political alignments. The issue about donor funding of a commission has been talked about. It has been said that, usually, we tend to rely so much on foreigners, therefore, they determine the agenda. If foreigners determine what happens in those commissions, it is because they find willing players. Some of the people we have in those commissions are not necessarily people of integrity. It is also because Government has not put enough resources to support the process. The issue about boundaries and the new constituencies has come up very strongly. There are Members here who have said that we should go by the Ligale Report. In spite of the fact that we acknowledge that there were major problems, the essence of this commission, even more than having qualified people, is to ensure that there is fairness. If Members of Parliament cannot stand for what is fair in terms of boundaries when they know very well that this report was contested and insist that it should be the basis for determining new boundaries just because some of them are benefiting, that is a very serious problem. In fact, we can almost say if Members of Parliament do not believe in fairness, even where they can see it clearly, then when we talk about vetting, I think these are the people who should be vetted, in the first place, before we talk about vetting other people. I would like to talk about whether or not there will be regional and district co- ordinators. There have been many complaints from district co-ordinators of the current IIEC regarding conflict of interest. Whereas there is one regional co-ordinator representing several counties, they tend to favour the counties where they come from. In other words, if we have a co-ordinator from Embu and that is the Regional Coordinator for Meru, Nithi and Embu as well, there are issues about how much we can expect him to be fair. Therefore, it is important that when we come up with a law that will govern the management of this body, that we do not duplicate responsibilities. There is no need to have several layers, from the headquarters to the regions and to the districts. I think it is important to go directly to the constituencies. If there is another level with the new Constitution, let it be the county. Finally, a point has been made about the composition. Those who come from the so called small ethnic communities have complained that they need stronger representation. As a matter of fact, I said that to the extent possible, a majority of members of this commission should come from smaller ethnic groups. If there is a way of leaving out the big five tribes who are already the judges, who occupy all the big positions and around whom all the political contests revolve, we would solve many of our problems. We should ensure that they do not form the majority in terms of political party representation and dominance in other professions, including key professions. People from the small ethnic communities should be the ones we give responsibility of governing a lot of this business because they are less partisan than those who come from groups that kind of influence, by virtue of numbers, how business is done both in politics and professionally. I support."
}