Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 526682,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/526682/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 183,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Mwaura",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 13129,
        "legal_name": "Isaac Maigua Mwaura",
        "slug": "isaac-mwaura"
    },
    "content": "When I look at this list, I do not think regional representation has been adhered to. If you look at the regions where some of the whips and leaders of the House come from, you will find that there are more than one Member from those regions. The question is: Was it because of favouritism? Was it because of proximity to the House leadership that people have been put in this list? I have a question because this looks like a cartel in the House’s leadership. The HBC is a very important Committee of the House and my opinion is that much as there are sanctions, they should not be abused by the drafters of this list as to ensure that because we have no recourse the list then passes unchallenged. If, for example, we have an issue the list can be withdrawn and re-submitted. However, if you take advantage of the fact that we are not supposed to have a sitting until six months elapse, and we will then be dissolved, I think that is not proper. We might not satisfy everybody, but it is important to have a list that is totally acceptable. This extends to various committees of the House. If we want to uphold the dignity of this House, we must ensure that whatever we do is, to a large extent, above board. If it is questionable, even by Members on the Floor, then this will erode the confidence that we have in the leadership of the House; the kind of representation, oversight and legislative proposals that will, of course, go a notch higher in meeting the needs of the people whom we represent. I would like to take this opportunity, on behalf of persons with disabilities, to actually condole with hon. George Muchai’s family. I knew him when we were in the civil society, especially when we used to negotiate for the Constitution and the Employment Act to include issues of people with disabilities. Not once, not twice did he call me on issues to do with people with disabilities; we work together to help his constituents. He made it very clear to many of us that there were people in the labour movement who were after him; that must not be ignored. I think part of the investigations must be in terms of communication with some of these people. It was very clear; let us not see grey arrears. Hon. Muchai faced very serious threats. If the consequence is that we have a platform, as Parliament, to only come here to mourn a Member and move forward, then I think everyone of us is endangered. This issue also concerns the teachers who are protesting outside Parliament because of their personal security in Mandera, Wajir and Garissa counties. We need to look at that issue as a country. We should not be seen to be elitist in that our only concern is when one of us is attacked. We need to ensure that we also look into the needs of those teachers who are concerned about going back to the area. Most of them are young people. When I spoke to them they said that they have young families and they are suffering. I think it is not just a question of wishing them away and issuing of threats by the Teachers Service Commission (TSC). We hope that the new commissioners, who will be vetted will ensure that there is a lasting solution to this issue. With those many remarks, I wish to oppose this list and urge the leadership of the House to withdraw it for reconsideration."
}