Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 662990,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/662990/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 563,
    "type": "other",
    "speaker_name": "",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "persuaded that the person who drafted this section did not read Article 81 because Article 81(b) of the Constitution is very clear. It reads:- “The electoral system shall comply with the following principles: (b) not more than two-thirds of the members of elective public bodies shall be of the same gender.” What business do political parties have with Article 81(b)? I dare suggest again this is a mistake. The next mistake that we are making is on Clause 19. I have participated in nomination disputes out of party primaries. The jurisdiction of those disputes is firmly in the IEBC under Section 88(4)(e). At what point did the author of this Bill seek a concurrent jurisdiction of disputes on party primaries to the political parties tribunal and that of the IEBC? This amendment is in itself unconstitutional. This jurisdiction is absolutely given to one body; that is the IEBC. We are, in this Bill, giving it to the Political Parties Tribunal. In effect, we are expanding the jurisdiction of the Political Parties Tribunal through an amendment of the Political Parties Act, without a corresponding amendment of a specific enabling legislation of Clause in the Constitution. Mr. Temporary Speaker, Sir, if this Senate passes this Bill and then we have party primaries and a person files a complaint with the IEBC and another files a similar complaint with the Political Parties Tribunal, how will we resolve that dispute? These are fundamental issues because the spirit of the Political Parties Tribunal was to determine matters political and not election. I have reason to believe so because the Political Parties Tribunal is one of our impediments to party discipline because it does not understand the Political Parties Act. How, then, do we give them this mandate and expect that when somebody challenges your nomination, you can go to the political parties tribunal which in the recent past has shown that it has no teeth or backbone and does not understand the political Parties Act? Where would you rather be; a body that has been given jurisdiction which is conferred by legislation; that has been given that mandate under this omnibus amendment or the Constitution? I urge my good friends and Senators to look at this very carefully because it will cause us problems in future. I am convinced the reason this amendment is being done is primarily because Sen. Murungi is championing a cause, which must come through the law. This is the reason we have this amendment. I would have preferred if this Parliament spent more time enforcing party discipline under Article 92 and strengthening the office of the Registrar. There is this obsession – it is in this amendment – with the Public Service Commission (PSC), which is now hiring the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) commissioners and staff of the Office of the Auditor-General. Now the PSC will hire the Registrar and Deputy Registrar of Political Parties. How truly then are we trying to strengthen the Office of the Registrar of Political Parties? By subjecting them to another Commission and body? In my view and reading of the Constitution, it does not have a mandate to interfere with political parties. Mr. Temporary Speaker, Sir, will we subject the Registrar of Political Parties to such a method? We have fallen into the same trap of making the Public Service Commission (PSC) look like more equal than others, as in The Animal Farm . The current Registrar of Political Parties has been serving in an acting capacity for reasons we do not 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"
}