Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 70446,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/70446/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 446,
    "type": "other",
    "speaker_name": "",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "lift the injunction against the Commission to enable the IIBRC as it were, to cure the defects. But that notwithstanding, the injunction was still not lifted even after the IIBRC had said that the boundaries missing from the initial gazette notice were in fact ready and, That the tenure of the IIBRC was to expire within 24 hours from the time of the ruling. Again, those are questions that beg for answers. Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Committee also took note of happenings at the Government Printer which raised the question as to whether the Government Printer acted in good faith by declining to gazette the Draft Notice submitted by the Commission. The IIBRC contended that it had submitted its first draft gazette notice to the State publisher at least 12 hours before the court injunction was delivered by Lady Justice Gacheche. The Commission also hopes that the Government Printer had never been a party to any of the suits, had no order issued against it, it was not passed and could, therefore, not have been injunctioned. Further, within hours of the subsequent ruling by Justice Daniel Musinga, the IIBRC presented to the Government Printer a notice to gazette the names and boundaries of the 290 constituencies as required by the ruling. But there was still no progress with the gazettment. The Commission is convinced beyond any shade of doubt that it had fulfilled all constitutional requirements for gazettment and expressed concern that the Government Printer was illegally questioning the legality of the work of a constitutional institution and has further wondered what would happen if the Printer, for instance, was to decline to gazette results of the 2012 general elections in defiance of the new IEBC because of some controversy. Suffice to say that as at the time of the expiry of the IIBRC constitutional term, on 27th November, 2010, its gazette notice was still lying at the Government Printer unpublished while the legal suits remained alive in courts with the Attorney-General now as the only respondent. As this House debates and considers this Report, this background information cannot be ignored. We cannot ignore the intense divergent sentiments that were triggered by the conclusion of the work of the IIBRC. We cannot ignore the legal and constitutional issues that have arisen by reason of that work because all those issues are part of the process of attempting to find an amicable and acceptable way out of this; a way that is not only politically acceptable but is also constitutionally tenable. Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, it is at that point of absolute stalemate that the Departmental Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs stepped in. This Committee is vested with broad mandate that includes the power to investigate, inquire into and report on all matters relating to the mandate, management activities, administration, operations and estimates of assigned Ministries and departments. The Interim Independent Boundaries Review Commission (IIBRC) was one of the Commissions under the oversight of this Committee. The Committee was, indeed, involved in the establishment of the IIBRC and had interacted closely and keenly with this Commission from the time of its inception. The Committee, therefore, took a very keen interest in the developments at the Commission, more so, when its activities started attracting such heated public interest. Therefore, at a retreat of all Members of Parliament convened at the Kenya Institute of Administration"
}