Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 737353,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/737353/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 142,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. ole Kenta",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 420,
        "legal_name": "Richard Moitalel ole Kenta",
        "slug": "richard-moitalel-ole-kenta"
    },
    "content": "Thank you, Hon. Temporary Deputy Speaker. From the outset, I oppose this Motion as presented. The EALA is a very important institution. I think as a country, we should send our best to that regional stage. We have been taking our cronies, relatives and losers in party nominations to such an important institution. I think it is wrong. That is what we are trying to do. As a lawyer, I have looked at the law and I think the presentation by the Majority Whip is not well informed, to say the least. I believe it is not well intended. It is ill-motivated and meant to frustrate the decisions made by CORD. Rule 6 talks about the party as follows: - “A party shall be entitled to nominate for election under these rules any number of candidates not exceeding three times the figure arrived at by multiplying the number of elected Members of Parliament of that party by such number as Joint Committee shall determine and dividing the result by the total number of elected Members of Parliament.” Therefore, it is for each party to decide. It does not say another party should instruct another party on how to go about this matter. That is what they are trying to do. Jubilee is trying to say “this is what CORD should do.” They should stay on their lane and let CORD stay on its lane. If you look at the rule critically, it does not say the minimum. It talks about not more than three times the number a party is entitled to. Why should they tell CORD that they should have had a minimum of nine or whatever number? I believe that argument is misplaced. When they cite the court decision, as one of my colleagues has just said, that was a wrong interpretation of the decision of the court because the law has not been changed. If the decision was made in 2006, what has stopped this Parliament or Jubilee from amending the law for the last 11 years? This is an afterthought that should not affect any party apart from themselves. The other day, I heard a Member here say that they intended to block a very senior EALA Member from assuming the position again just because they assumed that she rigged them out. I would like to put Jubilee on notice. They have continued to marginalise a particular community in the Rift Valley. If you look at their names, there are three members from one community and none from other communities. What they are trying to do is to marginalise that community not on their side, but on the ODM side, which should not be accepted. Any Member who thinks that they can use this Parliament to settle political scores is wrong. If you lost in a nomination, you 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."
}