Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 737294,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/737294/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 83,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Katoo",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 199,
        "legal_name": "Judah Katoo Ole-Metito",
        "slug": "judah-ole-metito"
    },
    "content": "The Committee observed that under Rule 6(1), a party could submit a number of nominees ranging from the minimum number it is entitled to under the Rules and up to three times the number of its entitlement. The Rules says: “Any number not exceeding three times.” Even if you are entitled to one slot, you can submit one name because that is what it says, so long as it is not more than three times. Just move along with me and I will explain the hiccups which are here and there. The Committee observed that this Rule provided discretion to the parties as to the number of nominees they would nominate, so long as they did not exceed the maximum number of their entitlement. I want Members to understand and Hon. Kaluma should pay attention. The Committee took note of the decision of the East African Court of Justice (EACJ) in Reference to Case No.1 of 2006 by Prof. Peter Anyang’-Nyong’o, the Attorney-General and others. I have the court ruling here. Those who went to that Court include the President, Deputy President and Hon. Billow Kerrow as the fourth intervener. There are so many other people and most of them are Members of this House. The Court emphasised that Rules made pursuant to the Treaty should not infringe the provision of Article 50 in so far as that Article conferred the powers whose primary purpose is to provide for the election of nine Members of the Assembly by the National Assembly of each partner state. The Court found that that purpose was defeated by the provision of Rule 7 of the then Rules for Election of Kenya’s Members to EALA, which provides for a fictitious election in lieu of a real election. The Court, therefore, held that the National Assembly of Kenya had not undertaken an election within the meaning of Article 50 of the Treaty. Therefore, Members are encouraged to have this Court Ruling. As Members of the Committee, we deliberated and we were in agreement that rules or laws that contravene court rulings are null and void. It is also noteworthy that, at the time, Rule 7 provided that: “Upon being certified that the requirement for Rule 6 had been complied with, the House Business Committee shall cause the names of the nine nominees of the parties to be tabled before the National Assembly and such nominee shall be deemed to have been elected as Members of EALA in accordance with Article 50 of the Treaty.” The Committee, therefore, resolved that in light of Article 50(1) of the Treaty and Rule 6(2) of the Rules, and noting the decision of the EACJ in Reference No.1 of 2006, it was important to ensure that the number of nominees from each of the parties enabled Members of the Parliament of Kenya to conduct an election as required and, in that election, Members had an opportunity to ensure that there is fair representation of the various shades of opinions, regional balance, gender and other special interest groups. Consequently, the Committee resolved that the CORD coalition which had submitted the names of five nominees submits the names of a total 12 nominees so as to enable compliance with the Treaty. The Committee further noted that for the future, there was need to amend Rule 6(1) since the Court had already ruled that it is not in tandem with Article 50 of the Treaty which requires parties to submit three times the number of their entitlement. We should amend that Rule. I want to fully agree with the parties that they made no mistake in submitting the minimum because the Rule says any number not exceeding three times. The minimum which is one does not exceed three times. That was not a mistake of the parties at all. Actually, we want to own up as the Joint Committee that it was an oversight by us because we should have seen that before the names were submitted and read the court ruling that nullified Rule 6(1). Therefore, we should have The electronic version of the Official Hansard Report is for information purposesonly. A certified version of this Report can be obtained from the Hansard Editor."
}