HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept
{
"id": 52360,
"url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/52360/?format=api",
"text_counter": 309,
"type": "speech",
"speaker_name": "Mr. Ruto",
"speaker_title": "",
"speaker": null,
"content": "Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, I want to look at the preliminaries in Article 2 on definitions. At the end there, it talks about the âfirst reviewâ. It says:- âThe first review means the delimitations of boundaries of constituencies and wards occasioned by the coming into force of the Constitution on 27th August, 2010.â Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, there has been a first review which is recognized by the former Constitution and part of the present Constitution and, in fact, we are alive to that. We have been alive to that. I am shocked to find that the Minister can purport to redefine what the first review can mean. I do not know whether he was not aware of this. I can also see a few other issues. When you go to the next page, it talks about the meaning of the Fund: The Independent Electoral Boundaries Commission Fund.â Maybe, it is a typographical error, but it should be the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission. But it cannot just be an Independent Electoral Boundaries Commission. That would be a different thing that we will be talking about in this Bill. Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, if we were to go ahead, when you talk about Article 4(c) which is on the delimitation of constituencies and wards using appropriate technologies and approaches, there needs to be very clear understanding of where we are heading to when we talk about this. I believe the entire process is subject to new technologies and approaches. It is not just the delimitation of the constituencies and wards. If you go through this Bill, I do not know whether we have sufficiently discussed and agreed on what is on Article 4(j) when it says:- âWe are now giving the powers of prosecution to this Commission.â I do not know whether that has been sufficiently debated. I do not know whether this one does not contradict the powers of the Director of Prosecutions in the current Constitution. I thought that is where we have vested the prosecutorial powers. However, in this Bill, we have given it the power to investigate. It reads:- âThe investigation and prosecution of electoral offences by candidates, political parties or their agents.â I do not know how far our electoral commission will be bogged down by these types of new assignments. I am also not satisfied - and I think we need to debate further - matters to do with the Chairperson. It is in Article 5(4). It states:- âThe chairperson and members of the Commission shall respect the delimitation of duties and its secretariat as the policy implementation.â I think that is okay. But when you say the chairperson and the vice-chairperson are the only ones who are full-time and the rest can be called any time--- Maybe, the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) wants them to attend a board meeting. I think we are reducing this Commission to the same status as a board where certain members may be called to attend a meeting and others may conveniently not receive letters. If we are coming up with a commission, I think in Godâs name, we should come up with one and not a board. I can see an attempt, throughout this Bill, to reduce the Commission to an ordinary board of directors or something like that. It is a board and it ceases to be a commission which, in my view, runs counter to the spirit of the Constitution. I do not know what kind of wisdom the Minister for Justice, National Cohesion and Constitutional Affairs used in coming up with this. Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, I also do not support the staggering at the first stage of commissioners. I know that it is important for us to retain certain expertise at the end of their six years. But how do we stagger? Are we going to start this process with about four commissioners and then later on we get another four? How do we ensure that there is regional representation with just four commissioners? I do not know whether we are starting on the right footing. I am a little bit worried about the entire Article 7 for a variety of reasons. It says that the chairperson and the vice-person shall be non-executive but shall serve on a full- time basis but the other seven members of the commission shall be non-executive and shall serve on a part-time basis. Now, we are dividing the Commission into two. I do not how much power the remaining two commissioners and the Chief Executive Officer will wield on this Commission. Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have heard arguments by one of the hon. Members who contributed earlier about the beauty of ensuring that commissioners are non-executive. Well, I believe that the entire Commission is essentially executive. It must give supervisory powers over the CEO. If you hand over the management of elections of this country to just one individual on the basis that if you have eight commissioners being full-time, then they will mismanage elections, then how worse can an individual be if he chooses to be arrogant? I am not persuaded that we can just have one individual running an election. I have seen in this Bill that he can communicate, and that communication from him must be obeyed, even if he does so by short messaging service (SMS), faxes, electronic communication and so on. That means that he can then instruct the returning officer on what not to do and what to do. We are over-concentrating powers on the Office of the Secretary to this Commission. I am also a little bit worried when you say that four other members of the Commission shall be appointed not more than 12 months. I had mentioned this before."
}