Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 747428,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/747428/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 394,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Mwadeghu",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 98,
        "legal_name": "Thomas Ludindi Mwadeghu",
        "slug": "thomas-mwadeghu"
    },
    "content": "Thank you, Hon. Speaker. The debate on this Motion was adjourned under Standing Order No.96 by Hon. Nyikal, so as to give us time for further consultation. Pursuant to the Standing Order No.48, I beg to move that the Motion be amended by inserting the following words immediately after the word “2017”, “subject to the deletion of Recommendations 3, 5, 6 and 7 appearing on pages 16 and 17 of the Report.” I am aware and cognisant of the fact that the Report was tabled and discussed partially and that in moving the amendment, I am aware of the court ruling in Arusha. But to the best of my knowledge, the time that matter went to court, we did not have rules in the House and we were relying entirely on the Report by the House Business Committee (HBC), hence the decision of the East African Court of Justice Ref No.1 of 2006. Subsequently, rules have been passed by this House. Rule 6(1) requires the parties which have slots to submit the names of their candidates as long as they do not exceed three times the number allocated to them. It is imperative to note that the Coalition for Reforms and Democracy (CORD) and in this case our coalition, has been given slots under the political parties represented. The Orange Democratic Movement (ODM) has been given three slots and the party has submitted three names as mandated. The Wiper Party has submitted one name. It is on that basis that I do not see any reason why any other party should submit a name under their coalition. There are only four slots. Three belong to the ODM, one to Wiper and the same has been done. Under Recommendation No.5, that the presiding officer appoints a new nomination officer and appoints a new nomination date to receive and process further nominations from CORD, is not attainable. As far as we are concerned, we had four slots. We have complied with the rules and regulations. After further consultations, we have agreed that the names which we submitted shall hold water and shall prevail. As far as this recommendation by the Committee is concerned, it is my considered opinion that it is wanting and does not hold water. Recommendation No.6 is on the conclusion of further nomination that the presiding officers forward the list of further nominees of CORD to the Joint Committee for consideration in accordance with Rule No.13. I find this recommendation misplaced. It is misplaced in the sense that ODM as a party has submitted three names. Wiper has submitted one name. The four slots have already been taken up. Which further names are we required to submit? Why are we being required to submit further names? Let us face it. This is the purview of political parties. Political parties are the ones who are supposed to submit the names, not any other person. It is in that regard that I wish to put it very clear to the House that we have done our bit. We have complied with the rules and there is no room for any other name. Where will any other names, which are being sought for, come from if the same party is the one that is required to submit the names? I understand that one of our coalition partners submitted a name to make them five. I want to make it very clear on the Floor of this House, that the names that have come from us are four and not five. The Members are being asked to accord ODM and Wiper an opportunity to give the names we have given. We have followed the procedures. We received a total of 39 applicants and we had a criterion which we used to eliminate and decide which names should be submitted to Parliament. We followed that criterion."
}