Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 702027,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/702027/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 341,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. (Dr.) Nyikal",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 434,
        "legal_name": "James Nyikal",
        "slug": "james-nyikal"
    },
    "content": "Article 28 of the Constitution on equality is clear. I do not think anybody disputes that. Article 81 on the principles of the electoral system is also clear, and that is the Article we are seeking to amend today. The issue comes up in Article 97 mainly about the National Assembly, where we are talking about the membership in Parliament. Article 177 mirrors this in the county assemblies. In the county assemblies, what was done is a very simple issue of arithmetic: that after the election is over; you look at the number of women and nominate enough women to abide by the rule of one-third. We did not do that in Article 97. Instead, we sought to get a political solution for what is simply an arithmetic issue. If we go by the current Constitution under Article 97 and Article 177, the only problem that will arise is that we will end up having a large Parliament. We would have a maximum, if no woman was elected at all, of 444 Members of Parliament. We have never sat down to look at the economics of such a decision, what it means and why we do not want that. If more women are elected, the number will obviously be less than that. We have sought to look at very complex ways of solving what is basically a mathematical problem. If for example, we were to reduce the numbers of Members and revert to the former state of 210 constituencies and then we apply Article 177, we will end up with a total of 324 Members of Parliament. This number includes the number of women we shall have elected to fill up the gap in order to attain the one-third gender rule. This is the way we should look at it. Even in the Duale Bill, that was the attempt that was made but again, we did not go about it very soberly. The substantive Speaker indicated clearly that there is a case in court that is questioning the legality of Parliament. We may take it for granted but politics, as it is, is very possible that some group there may actually want to disrupt the country. As Members of Parliament, we cannot discuss this matter without taking that into consideration. Somebody goes to court, and some judge says that Parliament is illegal. Where shall we be as a country? It is something we need to take it into consideration. We should not take it for granted. The fourth issue is the Bill itself. Taking all those things that I have said into consideration, what is the issue with the Bill? One thing about this Bill is the way it has come into Parliament. The Members of the Committee tell us that this Bill was not agreed on at the Committee level. The second thing is that this Bill was brought abruptly. I would have expected, at least, the House Business Committee (HBC) to discuss it. I am afraid it did not. The third thing about the Bill is that it is too simplistic. It does not address the issues at hand and it does not give confidence to our female colleagues that, if we decide to go the progressive way, the matter will be subjected to a legal process. I understand that in politics, there are difficulties in accepting the progressive method. Let us go the progressive way. Let us give it a chance to work out proper legislation that will take this into consideration. I, therefore, find it very difficult to support this Bill in those circumstances. It was not brought in good faith. Two, it is too simplistic."
}