Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 762587,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/762587/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 1082,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Cheptumo",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 50,
        "legal_name": "William Cheptumo Kipkiror",
        "slug": "william-kipkiror"
    },
    "content": "Clause 9 of the Bill seeks to amend Section 83 of the Elections Act, 2011. This section was the focus of the presidential election. The Supreme Court was of the view that the petitioner had the burden of proving that the election was not conducted in accordance with the principles laid out in the Constitution and the electoral laws or that the non-compliance with the principles laid out in the Constitution and election laws affected the results of the elections. I do not need to read that. What we are saying here is that Section 83 has two aspects: one, in an election petition, it is the business of the petitioner to establish one aspect of that section. If you can prove that the elections were not done in accordance with the Constitution, then an election has to be nullified. The same argument applies to the second part of the particular section. What we would like to propose is that it will be the business of the petitioner to ensure that you prove to the Supreme Court that the election was not conducted in compliance with the Constitution. The second aspect under Section 83 is about showing that non-compliance with the Constitution and the laws, indeed, substantially affected the results. The problem with ambiguous laws is that they are subject to interpretation by different people. We want the law to be clear. We are going for the repeat presidential election on 26th August 2017 and we have a chance to amend the laws to realign them so that if this issue arises in the future, we will not be accused of watching and waiting until too late."
}