Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 960325,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/960325/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 136,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Sen. Orengo",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 129,
        "legal_name": "Aggrey James Orengo",
        "slug": "james-orengo"
    },
    "content": "speech or the seconding of the Bill by Sen. Linturi I would have literally called for the killing of the Bill. They have very important recommendations that are being made on this Bill. However, I want to point out why I think we need a little discussion on this. One is the point that was mentioned by Sen. Linturi. If you listened to Sen. Linturi carefully, his arguments were actually not in support of the Bill. He was at pains because the IEBC is an independent Commission. It is one of the Chapter 15 institutions. Once it makes a decision, it should be final and can only be challenged in court. That is why there is this provision under Article 89 (10). Sub-article 10 follows Article 8 which is being amended. Then there is Article 9 which says that a person may apply to the High Court for review of a decision of the Commission made under this Article. This Sub-article, read together with the proposal in Clause 8 (d) of the Bill; that the Commission shall publish in the gazette the final report as approved by Parliament within 7 days of approval. What is challengeable in court is the decision of the IEBC. However, in a situation where what has been gazetted is not the actual decision of the IEBC, but of an approval of the National Assembly, it says that the Commission shall publish in the gazette the final report as approved by Parliament. What is available to any member of the public to challenge any of the decisions which are made under Article 89 will now not be available. I think we need to have a little conversation over this because this Bill cannot be amended. I say this with all the goodwill. In fact, if I had read this Bill before in my discussion with the Senate Majority Leader, I would have tried to persuade him otherwise. However, now that we find ourselves in this situation, I would rather that we suspend the debate and have more consultation. This is because the consequences of passing this Bill go beyond what it looks like; that any decision of the IEBC should come to Parliament. On the face of it, there is nothing wrong with it. Many other reports come to Parliament for approval, but in Article 89, the finality of the IEBC decision is what is available for challenge in court. This involves all the decisions they make under Article 89. Sub-article 10 says that a decision made by the IEBC under Article 89 can be challenged in court. Therefore, I really pray to the Senate Majority Leader, so that we are seen to be consistent with the Constitution. We should have a bi-partisan discussion and debate on this before we come back to Plenary to debate on this Bill. I so move."
}