Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 779537,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/779537/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 430,
    "type": "other",
    "speaker_name": "",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "The First Schedule of this Bill which delineates the boundaries of the various districts is lifted from the Bill that I piloted through Parliament and commissioned a cartographer to set out the boundaries. Subsequently – and that is why I said that the issue of boundaries is very emotive – more districts were administratively created. We wanted to make an amendment to this very Act to now incorporate the new districts. However, it became almost impossible because of the disputes relating to where boundaries of the new districts which had been created since 1992 will be. This is because we were cutting off clans, communities and tribes with the borders. Consequently, we were unable to come up with an amendment to delineate the districts which were there at the time the new Constitution was promulgated Mr. Temporary Speaker, Sir, you may recall that there was a very long debate, and here I refer to what the Senate Majority Leader stated. He said; “Should we have the former provinces, 12 or 18 provinces as set out in the First Draft of the Yash Pal Ghai’s Commission? What should we do? Should we just have the districts?” However, the districts as at the time the new Constitution came into being were almost 200. In fact, almost all constituencies were districts. Therefore, I am glad that the Committee of Experts (CoE) then accepted my proposal to have the districts as they were in 1992, when we passed this Act. This is because at least at the time, the boundaries were already set. However, what we did not include as the CoE is how the boundaries would be altered. I am, therefore, glad that Sen. Mutula Kilonzo Jnr. has come in with his youthfulness to try and provide a solution. I think that this is the right solution and I support this Bill Mr. Temporary Speaker, Sir, it is not possible to reduce the number of counties. The Senate Majority Leader said something that I support; that the small counties are not very viable and, therefore, they should have been bigger. However, at that time, it was felt that if we took the provinces or divided one or two big provinces; we would be going back to the Majimbo of 1963, and no one wanted to mention the word Majimbo . That is why we settled for this. However, if it felt that the number of counties should be reduced, then it cannot be through the alteration of boundaries in this Act. I would like to remove the impression that may have been created that through this Bill, one can reduce boundaries. The boundaries must remain as they are. Article 6(1) of the Constitution defines territory as:- “The territory of Kenya is divided into the counties specified in the First Schedule.” The First Schedule specifies those counties. Mr. Temporary Speaker, Sir, when we come to the issue of amendment of the Constitution, which is in Article 255(1), there are certain amendments which are proposed there. One of them is that if we are going to have an amendment touching on the territory of Kenya, which has been defined as the 47 counties or even the objects, principles and the structure of the devolved government, then we must have a referendum. That is the only way that we can reduce the number of counties in this country. We cannot reduce them through this Bill, which only deals with the disputes relating to boundaries of the 47 counties. The 47 counties will remain as they are. The electronic version of the Senate Hansard Report is for information purposes only. A certified version of this Report can be obtained from the Hansard Editor, Senate."
}