Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 618063,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/618063/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 251,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Sen. (Dr.) Zani",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 13119,
        "legal_name": "Agnes Zani",
        "slug": "agnes-zani"
    },
    "content": "Mr. Deputy Speaker Sir, this issue was debated for a long time and the issue of whether it should come as a referendum was brought up. However, realizing the path that will be taken following the path of a referendum and what it would mean and imply in terms of not complying specifically with Articles 27(8) and making sure it happens is what drove the whole process. Instead of moving and bringing it up as a referendum, we bring it up as something that would amend specific provisions of the law. Those provisions are already there. The provision in Article 177(b) is already there for the county assemblies. We thought therefore, it is easier and probably a straighter path to lift that amendment at Article 177 and give that same provision because it has already been accounted for. Article 177 clearly shows how to attain the two-thirds principle within the county assemblies. It is only that the provision is missing in Article 97 that is referring to the National Assembly and in Article 98 that is referring to the Senate. Therefore, we settled on that instead of going to a referendum, as if it is a new thing all together, and requesting for a process. The issue that arose is how to make sure that we attain the “no more than” two-thirds representation which can also be referred to as the one-third which is the opposite of the two-thirds. So, how do we get the one-third within the National Parliament, both at the National Assembly and the Senate? If we went to the referendum therefore, we would be addressing it as a whole new issue. That would be first, a very lengthy road to take, and secondly, the provision is already enshrined in the Constitution. So we are not going back to the people to ask them whether we should have the two-thirds. We already have provision in the Constitution and we are looking at how to highlight and make it easy for it to apply to the two organs; the National Assembly and the Senate where that provision had not been put in place. That provision has already been put in place in the county assemblies. Rather than go for a referendum therefore, the proposal is; if already Kenyans have already agreed it can be done in the county assemblies, why not do it at the National Assembly and the Senate rather than going back again and asking them what provisions we have. So, starting with that, the various organs, organizations, women movements and men organizations all came together to see how to go about it. The first thing is that an opinion was sought from the Supreme Court by the women themselves. An advisory opinion was given on how to do it so that it is not progressive and would help us find a mechanism that would help us do that. That is why various organizations and Bills came in. We have the “Soipan Bill”, another one that was going to be proposed by Hon. Neto, and a taskforce that was working for the Attorney General. We then clearly moved away from the issue of a referendum, to an issue of making a provision which is missing from a specific Article in order to apply that law."
}