HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept
{
"id": 874665,
"url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/874665/?format=api",
"text_counter": 220,
"type": "speech",
"speaker_name": "Rarieda, ODM",
"speaker_title": "Hon. (Dr.) Otiende Amollo",
"speaker": {
"id": 13465,
"legal_name": "Paul Otiende Amollo",
"slug": "paul-otiende-amollo"
},
"content": " You may not know, Leader of the Majority Party, that there is such a thing as a right of reply in the Constitution. Hon. Speaker, in similar manner, may you expunge the reference by the Leader of the Majority Party to the Nomiya East African Church as a small religion. There are no small or big religions under the Constitution. All religions are equal. Therefore, Islam, Christianity, Nomiya are all the same. Secondly, this is a serious matter and I appreciate the Members who have spoken to it. It is particularly important because I am acutely aware that the last time a matter of this nature was raised, and it was raised by my colleague Hon. Olago Aluoch, was before the new Constitution was enacted. It is, therefore, particularly important that you pronounce yourself on this. As you pronounce yourself, I urge that you bear in mind three things. First, the Constitution has since changed and recognises the freedom of dressing unlike before, so that our Standing Orders, the Speaker’s Rules and the precedents would need to bear that in mind. Secondly, I urge you to bear in mind that all the Members who spoke to this matter talked of the rules must be respected, but not a single one of them quoted which rule, because there is no such rule. It is very important. If there was a rule and if we decided to put these matters in the Standing Orders, it would be different. The rules that are there are not the rules under the Standing Orders that we talk of. They are only in the Speaker’s Rules, which you read. And the Speaker’s Rules, and this is important, have been there for almost a decade, if I trace their history. One of the things the Speaker’s Rules have usually emphasised is that when you wear a blazer and a trouser, and provided what you wear covers up to your collar, it is allowed. You will know that many colleagues before us have, therefore, dressed like that for decades: Koigi wa Wamwere used to dress like that; Anyang’ Nyong’o used to dress like that— inside of Parliament. There are many such examples. We can go to the HANSARD and earlier rulings. So, the question is: Is it only because it is the blazer covering the collar and not the shirt covering the collar? As you rule on it, the Speaker’s Rules are clear: It is either you wear a collar or a tie. My learned friend, Hon. Olago Aluoch, did not see my collar. This is called a collar. I am wearing a collar and it covers up to my neck. So, in terms of the rules that have existed and in terms of precedents, it falls squarely within that. The last thing to bear in mind is that most Parliaments have actually enacted clear rules. If you go to the East African Legislative Assembly, there are very clear rules in the Standing Orders. In our case, there are none. It is left to the discretion of the Speaker and Members. The consistent ruling by Speakers has always been that when it comes to decency—whether it is decent and smart—it is left to the Members. But when it comes to whether it is a collar or a religious garb, the Speaker rules. I am happy that all my colleagues who spoke agreed that this is smart and decent, which means they are only calling upon you to say whether this is a collar. They are also calling on you to say whether what has stood over the decades, where we are also allowed Chinese suits, can stand. I say only one thing: In making that ruling, examine and ask yourself: What is the purpose of a tie other than to remind us that we are still held by the collar by our colonisers? Thank you, Hon. Speaker."
}