Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 945093,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/945093/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 161,
    "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": " Thank you, Hon. Speaker. I will start by commending the Constitutional Implementation Oversight Committee for coming up with this Bill, which is timely and useful in many ways. However, I find myself constrained to oppose it. Whereas it has so many positive provisions, it also has a number of suggestions that are not positive. First, as noted by the Committee in its Report, it is not entirely true that no legislation has been enacted under Article 100. What is true – as it was indicated to the Committee by the Office of the Attorney-General and other relevant offices – is that Parliament, in its wisdom, chose to go to different pieces of legislation and amended them. Many of them are already outlined. Therefore, the Office of the Attorney-General and the former Constitution Implementation Commission (CIC) saw no need of doing an independent stand-alone legislation on Article 100. So, it is not that Parliament failed previously, but Parliament chose a different route. Whether now we should sustain that different route or come to a consolidated legislation, it is a matter of debate. There are six reasons why I am opposed to this Bill. First, in the definition section, Clause 4 adopts the definition in Article 100 of marginalised groups word for word. It, therefore, conflates the definition of marginalised groups and the definition of special interest groups. The two are not necessarily the same. Therefore, to take the definition in Article 100 and adopt it as the definition of special interest groups is a conflation that is dangerous. Second, in Clause 5(c), it purports to give Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) and the Registrar some say on the process of regulating how parties make their party lists. So far, the Constitution gives IEBC the mandate to regulate the process by which parties conduct their nominations. To date, IEBC has not been able to undertake that. It is dangerous to give IEBC an additional jurisdiction to even determine how you arrive at the party lists. That is intrusion. Third, it defines in Clause 7(2) what is meant by ethnic and other minorities. These are difficult terms. It then says it means a group that is not the dominant in a given society. “Given society” means what? Is it a village, a location, a ward, a constituency, a county or the whole continent? Instead of that definition helping to define, it is widening it to an amorphous situation. It can mean anything or everything. Given that this is a definition that entitles a person to certain The electronic version of the Official Hansard Report is for information purposes only. Acertified version of this Report can be obtained from the Hansard Editor."
}