Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 945102,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/945102/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 170,
    "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 am going to address that. But first, let me just say that the intervention by my learned brother is actually not inconsistent with what I said. I think he did not just get what I said clearly. I said the Members of Parliament interfered with the number of constituencies, not that they introduced the idea of one- third gender rule. The idea of one-third gender rule came from public participation and it was in the Bomas Draft and all the subsequent drafts and we adopted it. So, we are actually on the same page. On that question, before I revert to my original question, my understanding of the provisions of Articles 88 through to 90 is that we introduced something that was unique by recognizing that in many parts of this country, the nomination process essentially becomes the election depending on the party and the area. Therefore, it was very important that the nominations are conducted credibly. In fact, the initial proposal was that the IEBC would conduct nominations for parties. But the IEBC came and said that it might be quite expensive because parties might not be conducting them on the same day. Therefore, we changed the terminology and said that the IEBC will regulate the process of nominations. To date, they have not regulated it. Therefore, the extent that the Constitution goes to is to regulate the process of actual nomination. But the Constitution does not purport to regulate how the IEBC arrives at the party list. That is entirely left to the party. Whether it is done democratically as Hon. John Mbadi sought to say or whether it is not democratic as my brother sought to say is a different matter. It is just that the Constitution does not go as far as the Bill proposes to go. In my view, to go that far is to overreach. Not just to overreach, it even becomes impractical to ask a party to tell you the process of arriving at the name of Hon. Jimmy Angwenyi as a possible nominee or otherwise. That is overreaching. Let me come back to Clause 17. The clause requires that every political party will ensure that, at least, one-third of its nominees for parliamentary and county assembly elections are of either gender and that 5 per cent are persons with disabilities. It is prospective; it is admirable, but it is impractical. It is impractical because it runs contrary to Article 38. Article 38 gives any person and every person who is interested in vying, provided that they are qualified, the right to stand as a candidate. As long as we maintain our system of government, where it is constituency based and where it is first-past-the-post, how will you tell the people of Rarieda that Rarieda is reserved for a person with disability? How will you tell the people of Kisumu Town West or the people of Seme that we have agreed that this particular constituency is reserved for a woman? If you will not tell them, then how else will you implement this? It is impractical. Therefore, my submission is that it is a problem we have. It is a problem we have to live with. The solution does not lie in this kind of contribution. The solution must lie in going back to the Constitution and asking ourselves hard questions. We must ask ourselves the very hard questions: Is it true that the idea of one-third gender principle is a principle we want or it is just 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."
}