National Assembly Hansard: Thursday, 22nd October, 2026

Serjeant-at-Arms, ring the Quorum Bell. (The Quorum Bell was rung) Hon. Members, we now have quorum to transact business. (Several Members walked into the Chamber) Members on their feet, take your seats.

Hon. Members, I wish to introduce to you a delegation from the Parliamentary Service Commission of the Parliament of Malawi, who are seated in the Speaker's Row. They are:

Thank you, Hon. Speaker. Allow me to welcome our visitors from the Parliament of Malawi. Thank you for deepening the relations between our two nations and, more so, our two Parliaments. We all have much to learn from each other. I was in Malawi in 2016. It is a very beautiful country with great potential. We can work together as two Parliaments to improve our people’s lot. We look forward to working with you and engaging more deeply with you during your sessions. Thank you, Hon. Speaker.

Thank you, Leader of the Majority Party. Hon. Members, you may have noticed that the names of the Malawi delegation all sound like names from coastal Kenya. I am sure you know the Mwales, the Mkumbas, and the Kaluas of Kenya. That shows that Africans are one.

Hon. Members, in addition to our colleagues from Malawi, allow me to introduce and recognize a delegation from the National Assembly of Namibia. The delegation is seated in the Speaker’s Gallery and is in Kenya to undertake a benchmarking visit to the National Assembly to exchange experiences, learn from our institutional practices and intensify best practices and innovative approaches that may inform improvements in the operations of the National Assembly of Namibia. On my behalf and that of the whole House, I welcome the delegation from Namibia to our Parliament and wish them fruitful engagement.

Next Order.

Hon. Members, we have two petitions. I will present to you one that came to my office, and Hon. Kihungi will present another one from his constituents.

Hon. Members, Article 119 of the Constitution accords any person the right to petition Parliament to consider any matter within its authority. Further, Standing Order 225(2)(b) requires the Speaker to report to the House any petition other than that presented by a Member.

In this regard, Hon. Members, I wish to report to the House that my office is in receipt of a petition.

Order, Hon. Sabina Chege. Take your seat. You are out of order. In this regard, Hon. Members, I wish to report to the House that my office is in receipt of a petition from Dr Constantine Wasonga Opio, PhD, National Secretary-General of the Universities Academic Staff Union (UASU); Dr Charles Mukhwaya, National Secretary- General of the Kenya University Staff Union (KUSU); and Mr Odoyo Ogenga, National Trustee of the Kenya Union of Domestic, Hotels, Educational Institutions, Hospitals and Allied Workers (KUDHEIHA).

The petition concerns the negotiation, funding and implementation of the 2025 to 2029 Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) as well as the funding of salaries for employees of

Yes, Leader of the Majority Party.

Hon. Speaker, thank you for that petition. I seek your indulgence to request that the Public Petitions Committee also engages with the Departmental Committee on Education and, perhaps, a few Members of the Departmental

Not all of them are learned, but they are educated.

Let me refer to them as learned educators, or simply, our good educators.

My deputy will tell you that being learned is the preserve of only one profession.

Hon. Speaker, I know where you were heading, but I am not a member of that particular profession. I am an accountant, not a lawyer. I know it is you lawyers who consider yourselves learned.

Yes. As for you, you are educated.

Our good educators have every right to demand what they justifiably believe is due to them. However, they should also give dialogue a chance and appreciate the dictates of our new Constitution. If money is to be appropriated from the Consolidated Fund, then we cannot shove away the SRC. The SRC exists because we enacted a new Constitution that created it as an independent constitutional commission to look into the remuneration of public and State officers. Therefore, we cannot just shove them aside and say that there is a CBA and we have no business with the SRC.

Yes, Hon. Oundo.

Hon. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity. Let me also join in support of the petition.

Order, Hon. Naicca. Go back to where you have just come from and do what you should do. (Hon. Naicca proceeded to the Bar and bowed to the Chair) Go on, Hon. Oundo.

Hon. Speaker, I sympathise and empathize with my former colleagues in the lecture halls. The CBA we are talking about was negotiated many years ago. I feel their pain that the implementation of the same has been piecemeal and slow. I understand why they feel like they have been mistreated by the people of Kenya. I want to associate myself with the sentiments of the Leader of the Majority Party.

Given the nature of this petition, I am not sure that the Public Petitions Committee will do justice in addressing this matter, which is professional and concerns a specific area. I, therefore, beseech you to exercise your discretion and probably set up an ad hoc committee comprising Members of the Departmental Committee on Education and the Departmental

Hon. Wandeto, you have two minutes.

Thank you, Hon. Speaker. I also want to add my voice to this petition. Thank you for bringing it to the House. It is a very deserving petition. I think

Yes, Hon. Karemba.

Thank you, Hon. Speaker. Allow me to associate myself with the thoughts of the Leader of the Majority Party and Hon. (Dr) Oundo because, coincidentally, I served in the Departmental Committee on Education in the last Parliament. I also served as Chairperson of the Departmental Committee on Labour. The issues that have been raised in the petition fall under the jurisdiction of the Labour and Education Committees. At your discretion, we can adopt a joint working approach.

You are running away from responsibility?

I am not doing so, Hon. Speaker. I am only being realistic.

Thank you, Hon. Karemba. Hon. Leader of the Majority Party, I direct that the petition be handled by the joint Committees of Education and Labour. We will excuse Hon. Karemba and his team to continue doing the good work they are doing on other petitions.

Before I call Hon. Kihungi, allow me to acknowledge, in the Public Gallery, Mombasa Academy from Nyali, Mombasa; and in the Speaker's Gallery, Moi University students from Kesses, Uasin Gishu County.

On my behalf and that of the House, I welcome the students and those accompanying them to the Parliament.

Hon. Kihungi.

Hon. Speaker. I rise to present Public Petition No. 28 of 2026 regarding disparities in tea prices and farmers' earnings across tea-growing regions in Kenya.

I, the undersigned, on behalf of tea farmers from Kangema Constituency and other tea- growing areas of Murang'a County, draw the attention of the House to the following:

THAT, tea farming is a foundational pillar of Kenya's agricultural economy, providing sustainable livelihoods to hundreds of thousands of smallholder farmers and

Thank you, Hon. Kihungi. Yes Hon. Mogaka.

Thank you, Hon. Speaker. I thank the Member for Kangema for bringing this Petition. I come from the Gusii region, which is a tea- growing area where the issue of tea has been a menace to farmers for decades. I request that as the relevant Committee investigates and responds to this Petition, it seeks to understand why more than 63 years after independence, our researchers have not come up with a solution involving additives and fertilizers that can make the quality of our tea crop the same everywhere.

We have a problem where certain regions of this country, particularly the Mount Kenya Region, gets very high yields from their tea while other regions are told that the quality of their tea is not comparable. Is it not possible for this country, more than 63 years after independence, to introduce or develop fertilizers and other additives that can bring the quality of tea in this country at par across regions? These disparities are not only annoying but are also very demoralizing to farmers.

Therefore, the Committee dealing with this Petition is invited to visit and listen to the grievances of farmers in tea-growing regions such as Gusii, Kericho and other areas because Kenya is one and we should be able to achieve parity. That is why researchers are in laboratories. They are supposed to give us what it takes to achieve equality.

I thank you.

Hon. Karemba. One minute each.

Thank you, Hon. Speaker. The issue of tea and the amount of money farmers earn in bonuses need to be looked into. I come from a place where farmers earned up to Ksh50, which was the highest. However, when you talk to the farmers, they are still complaining about how much money they earned. Therefore, when I listen to other Members complaining about what their farmers earned, I only imagine that this is an issue that the Departmental Committee on Agriculture and Livestock needs to look into because the issue of quality is not necessarily about where the tea comes from but also about the buyers at the Mombasa Tea Auction.

Let the Departmental Committee on Agriculture and Livestock delve into this issue. I also invite Hon. Members from the Gusii Region and other regions to come to Mount Kenya Region, particularly my constituency, and benchmark just as the Vice-Chairperson of the Departmental Committee on Agriculture and Livestock did this year. He was very excited to see how tea is processed and the quality we produce in Embu. Thank you.

Thank you, Hon. Speaker. The issue of tea bonuses is hurting our farmers. In fact, our farmers are devastated. They do not know what has been done to them. They have been made sick and are using antidepressants. When harvesting tea, farmers are told to pick two leaves and a bud. That is what they are doing. Is it not the same crop? It is. We cannot say that tea from Western, Rift Valley and Nyanza is useless while tea from regions where farmers are earning Ksh50 is useful tea. Tea is the same product. In fact, let them emulate Safaricom, credit worth Ksh100 is sold at Ksh100 in Nairobi, Lokichogio and everywhere.

The only thing that differentiates Kenyans is politics where one can say one term or two terms but when it comes to tea, they are making Kisii farmers suffer. We are business people, our learners excel in good schools but when it comes to tea sales, farmers in Kisii, Rift Valley and Western regions get almost nothing. Why? They have defiled the farmers. They have poisoned tea farmers, and we are not happy about it. How can they give farmers in Nyanza region Ksh12 per kilogram and give farmers elsewhere Ksh50 per kilogram and tell us to go and benchmark? Is it a different crop for our farmers to go and benchmark? What are they supposed to benchmark on? Usawa should be usawa for everyone. This issue has made us unable to sleep in our homes because farmers are asking us, “You are the politicians, what are you doing?” We are not okay. This thing is affecting our farmers. It should be balanced…

Point made Hon. Donya. Hon. Ikiara.

Thank you, Hon. Speaker. I thank the Member for Kangema for bringing this Petition to the House this afternoon. I share in the pain of Hon. Dorice Donya. The farmers in Meru have suffered the same fate. If there is an area where people earn their living through toil and sweat, it is tea picking. Tea is picked in the morning hours. The women and men who do this job have to carry baskets on their backs. The areas where they pick tea are extremely cold ever. It is like Siberia because there is no sunshine deep within the tea benches where they pick the tea. We state today that the Departmental Committee on Agriculture and Livestock should give us an acceptable explanation as to why we are being told that some areas are earning a certain amount while others are earning less.

Tea, to me, is tea. The Meru farmers should not suffer by being told that the quality of their tea is not the best in the market. We should not suffer by being told that the cost of production is very high. It is high time that we interrogated the Kenya Tea Development Agency (KTDA) and obtain sufficient and convincing answers but the only answer that will satisfy our farmers, especially the Meru farmers, is an assurance that our tea will go to the market and fetch the best bonuses. I share in their pain. It is women and other vulnerable people who pick tea leaves.

Point made. Next is the Hon. Deputy Speaker.

Thank you, Hon. Speaker. Mine is just a point of information. We seem to be focused on tea prices or complaining about quality, but the challenge has to do with the Tea Research Institute, which is under the Kenya Agricultural and Livestock Research Organisation (KALRO).

In every part of Kenya, there is a different variety of tea. The researchers are supposed to continuously research to get seedlings that are pest-resistant or better quality. It is important for the Public Petitions Committee to look into how much work has been put into the Tea Research Institute. For example, the Coffee Research Institute had a 34-year break in developing seedlings. After that, it became difficult for the farmers to get good quality coffee. It all lies with the research, production and development of new seedlings.

Thank you, Hon. Speaker.

Hon. Mong’ina. Give Hon. Jerusha the microphone. There is one next to you.

Thank you, Hon. Speaker. As a Kisii woman, I am crying today. The issue of tea prices has made most of us not to sleep in our homes. Our farmers are crying all over. We would like to understand why farmers in the Gusii region get the least bonuses. The type of tea that we sell is almost the best.

We have rain throughout in the Nyanza region. If there is a place where the best tea is found and grown, it is in Kisii but farmers have despaired. They have said their children would not go to school. We would like to understand why most people from the Nyanza region, especially the Kisii people, are not equal to the rest of the Kenyans. Why do our people get the least bonus? Departmental Committee on Agriculture and Livestock Chair, we are crying. Our people said we must not move out of this House until we get the answers. We want the answers so that our children can go to school.

Thank you, Hon. Speaker.

You have made your point. Next is Hon. Nyakundi.

Thank you, Hon. Speaker. I would like to concur with the rest of the team. Let usawa be sawa. Let us not have usawa which is not sawa on other things. It is sad for our farmers, especially where I come from. I grow tea. I got Ksh16 per kilogram in the current bonus, while the rest of the country got Ksh53 or Ksh56. Our tea is the same as the tea grown in the Central Kenya region. If there is an issue with production or quality of the tea, these people should give us the seedlings that are required so that we plant the tea that they want. This will enable us to get the same bonus as the rest of the country. It is sad that farmers can wake up in the morning, toil each and every single day and then get a paltry Ksh12 or Ksh14 per kilogramme.

There were some reforms that were introduced in the coffee sector. It is doing well now. Fertilizer subsidy is being provided to other farmers. They are now doing well. Sugarcane farmers are also doing well. Currently, we have a problem in the tea sector. We need to solve it now because our farmers are sick and tired of the bonus they get.

Thank you. Hon. Kirima, you are next.

Thank you, Hon. Speaker, for giving me this opportunity to contribute to this emotive and important Petition.

(Hon. (Dr) John Mutunga Kanyuithia consulted with Hon. Brighton Yegon)

Chairman, Hon. Mutunga, I hope you are listening. Stop that conversation and listen.

Go on, Hon. Kirima.

Hon. Speaker, the tea issue has been politicized in the Republic of Kenya. Last year and last year but one, farmers in my factory got a good bonus of over Ksh50 per kilogram but in the latest payment, the factory where I am a member and tea farmer, paid only Ksh37 per kilogram. There is a number of things which determine tea prices.

First and foremost, we do not understand why we got Ksh60 per kilogram last year but one, but we got only Ksh37 per kilogram this year. It means that there is interference, in one way or another. It may be out of the laws which are passed this House. The tea levy affects the outcome of the bonus. The type of tea which we have planted, the type of soil on which tea is planted, and how we handle our tea before it is taken to the factory affect tea prices. There are a lot of expenses for fertilizers and labour.

Hon. Speaker, can the Committee clarify how a factory gets Ksh60 per kilogram in one year and gets Ksh37 per kilogram in the subsequent year? As my colleagues from other regions have said, this issue has been politicised. It should be clear that it is not this House which

Leader of the Majority Party, can you hold on so that I give an opportunity to two or three Members before you contribute?

Proceed, Hon. Sabina Chege.

Thank you, Hon. Speaker. I would like to speak as a tea farmer and a Member of the Departmental Committee on Agriculture and Livestock.

I would like to inform this House that this matter of tea has not just started now. Last year and early this year, the Departmental Committee on Agriculture and Livestock visited many tea factories. The issue in the tea sector is about tea factory management. Members are talking about the quality of tea that is either in the West or East. This is managed from the tea factory.

We have politicised the tea industry which affects the way we elect the Directors. There is a Report because the President gave a directive that an audit should be done by the Tea Board of Kenya. Two weeks ago, part of that audit was brought before our Committee. I would like our Members to take time to go through that initial audit Report. There is another one that started from 5th October to the end of this month.

There is a lot of mismanagement in the tea factories. Members need to educate the farmers. When they are electing the Board of Directors, they should consider their qualifications and understanding of the industry. There is a lot of money that is being taken by the Directors. The loans that are borrowed by the tea factories are paid by the farmers. At the end of the day, the Board of Directors deduct the loans from the bonus, and farmers are given little money. Unfortunately, some of the factories that give good bonuses take loans from financial institutions to impress the farmers, without disclosing the source of the money.

When we get the audit Report from the Tea Board of Kenya, the reality of the matter will be known, but the management of tea factories must be re-looked.

You have made your point. Member for Kericho, proceed.

Thank you, Hon. Speaker, for giving me this opportunity to contribute. I am a tea farmer.

Hon. Members, if you get a chance to speak, take one minute because I can see Members who have raised their hands.

Hon. Speaker, I am a tea farmer. The bonus is between Kshs14 and Kshs35 per kilogram in factories in Kericho County. This tells us that the farmers are really suffering. The cost of production is very high. Most farmers grow tea only. Their children go to school because of growing tea. If there is mismanagement of the factories, and a problem with growing tea and type of soil, what can the Ministry do to make sure that the farmers get better payment? I ask the Departmental Committee on Agriculture and Livestock to do something about it because the farmers are helpless. They cannot only talk about the Directors of the factories.

Proceed, Hon. Osero.

Thank you, Hon. Speaker. I am also a Member of the Departmental Committee on Agriculture and Livestock.

As Hon. Sabina Chege has said, we visited the tea growing regions as a Committee. Members from the Eastern region went to the Western region and those from Western region went to the Eastern region. However, there is something that is being ignored in this House. The Kenya Tea Development Agency (KTDA) pooled resources for what is called hydropower energy to cut the cost of production of tea. The hydropower program was concentrated more in the East of the Rift Valley. The cost of production is nearly 50 per cent of the earnings. This

Next is Hon. Pukose.

Thank you, on behalf of the people of Cherangany in Kapsara and Kapretwa, where we also grow tea. At times we think of Central, Nyanza and Kericho when we talk of people who grow tea. When you meet them, those are miserable yet they have invested in their farms. I think Members from those areas should appear when the Committee is looking into the matter so that the issues are articulated and all our people within the country enjoy their bonus equally. If we have hydropower factories being concentrated in Eastern, why not in Western so that we have equality? That is why we are saying usawa ni sawa. Thank you

Hon. (Dr) Mutunga, you hear the mood of the House. You can feel it. I will give the Leader of the Majority Party as the last on this. Or have you abandoned your intention to speak to this?

Thank you, Hon. Speaker. First, I want to thank Hon. Kihungi for bringing the Petition, more importantly, because I have carefully listened to all the issues that have been raised, especially the very passionate presentation by Hon. Dorice Donya, who is the County Women Representative of Kisii County. All the issues that Members have raised, and what the petitioners are saying, are indeed true. However, the solution lies in this House. We have the Tea Bill before this House. I was looking for a letter that the Clerk had already written. The Chair of the Committee will tell us where they are on the matter.

The Clerk had written to the Ministry of Agriculture to give their views on the proposed amendments on the Tea (Amendment) Bill. When asked the Chair whether he was following, I was engaging with him and his Vice-Chair, Hon. Brighton. They are gone. The issues bedeviling the tea sector are basically man-made problems. The issue of inability to do direct sales is being dealt with through Tea (Amendment) Bill. When the Chair finalizes with the Ministry, soon after recess, we shall finalize with the Bill.

Hon. Speaker, if you remember, you ruled that we retract our steps because of the actions of the Member for Gatundu South, Hon. Kagombe, who doubles as the Member for Gatundu South and Director of KTDA. There was a direct conflict of interest in his participation in the processing of the Bill as he pushed through amendments without declaring his interest. I must thank you because you protected tea farmers in a very big way. What bedevils our tea industry is abuse of office by the leadership of tea factories.

In some tea factories, you have directors who can hardly read or write. They are people with no experience in management but they are managing tea factories. What do you expect to be the end result? There must be disparities in terms of how much farmers in such factory will earn as tea bonuses vis-a-vis in factories being led by proper corporate governance experts. These are people who have work experience in corporate environment, who can even reach out to market their tea better.

I assure tea farmers that these solutions will be sorted out by the Tea (Amendment) Bill which will address such issues, including reduction of the tea levy from 2 per cent to 1 per cent or something like that because those are matters that the Chair and the Committee of Agriculture are engaging with the Ministry. This is to notify all our people that when there is conflict of interest, problems will always be there. We are the ones who passed the Conflict of Interest Bill in this House. It is unfortunate that Hon. Kagombe did not have the wisdom to

Hon. (Dr) Mutunga, you have heard the passionate sentiments on Hon. Kihungi’s Petition. Ordinarily, this Petition would have gone to the Public Petitions Committee. Hon. Brighton, are you not the Vice-Chairperson of the Departmental Committee on Agriculture and Livestock? I am addressing both of you. This Petition will come to you and you must do justice to it.

Some of us come from coffee-growing areas. When a kilogram of coffee goes for Ksh30 in Central Kenya, it should also go for Ksh30 in Western Kenya. When the price rises to Ksh120 or Ksh130, it rises across the country. Why would a tea farmer in one part of the country receive a bonus of Ksh50, while a farmer in another part receives Ksh20? You have quite some work to do. Bring a report to the House within the shortest time possible. Also, proceed with the Bill that is pending before the House.

Last year, you sent us to the field to establish why there was a significant disparity between the price per kilogram of tea in the West of the Rift Valley and the East of the Rift Valley. We conducted an inquiry, prepared a report and tabled it in this House.

Hon. Speaker, I am also a tea farmer, and my factory performed dismally. I believe my factory received a second payment of Ksh16 per kilogram, which was among the lowest. I think the lowest payment this year was about Ksh12, while the highest was about Ksh58. There are many issues which need to be addressed. One of them is being addressed by the Tea (Amendment) Bill, which I am co-sponsoring in this House. The Bill is at the Third Reading stage, under the Committee of the whole House. As the Leader of the Majority Party has said, we need to fast-track it so that we address many issues, including provision for direct sales by tea factories.

When all our tea is taken to Mombasa for auction, the farmer does not get value for money. We, therefore, need direct sales so that factories can negotiate directly with buyers. The buying price should not be lower than the price achieved at the auction over a three-month period. There are also issues relating to value addition that need to be addressed, as well as the strengthening of the Tea Board of Kenya.

Are these not the issues you intend to address in your response to the Petition? Please deal with the Petition and bring a report to the House, which I will allow the House to consider and debate. Hon. (Dr) Mutunga, do you need 60 days or less?

Thank you very much, Hon. Speaker. I would like to appeal to Members of this House. First, to obtain the report we produced following the inquiry so that we can all be adequately informed. This will enable us to interrogate the Ministry's response when it is presented. I do not know what the Ministry will say.

As the Ministry responds, we can interrogate its response. Without the report, we shall be dealing with these issues in the dark.

Hon. (Dr) Mutunga, deal with the Petition as presented by Hon. Kihungi.

It is okay, Hon. Speaker.

Yes.

There is only one thing I wanted to mention, Hon. Speaker. The Clerk of the National Assembly wrote to the Ministry on 29th September to address certain issues arising from the Amendment Bill. Some of these issues relate to what is being discussed in the House today.

If you wish, Hon. Speaker, I can highlight these issues so that Members can know that we are addressing them.

Not now.

Okay, Hon. Speaker. We shall deal with these issues as they arise.

Thank you very much.

Thank you. Before I call the next Order, Hon. Members, we have students from Kipsinendet Secondary School in Kuresoi North Constituency, Nakuru County and Ereteti Comprehensive School in Narok East Constituency, Narok County seated in the Public Gallery.

On my behalf and on behalf of the House, I welcome the students, their teachers and those accompanying them to the House of Parliament. We wish you a pleasant and informative visit.

Next Order.

Leader of the Majority Party, proceed.

Hon. Speaker, I beg to lay the following Papers on the Table:

Rahab Mukami.

Thank you, Hon. Speaker. I beg to lay the following Paper on the Table:

Hon. Rahab Mukami.

Thank you, Hon. Speaker. I beg to give notice of the following Motion:

THAT, this House notes the Reports of the Kenya Delegation to the Second Ordinary Session of the Sixth Parliament of the Pan-African Parliament, and the Extraordinary Session of the Sixth Parliament of the Pan-African Parliament, held in Midrand, South Africa, from 15th May to 2nd June 2023 and 20th to 27th March 2024 respectively, laid on the Table of the House on Thursday, 22nd October 2026 and Thursday, 2nd May 2024. Thank you.

Yes, Hon. Maungu.

Thank you very much, Hon. Speaker. I beg to give notice of the following Motion:

THAT, this House adopts the Second Report of the Public Investments Committee on Governance and Education on its consideration of audited Financial Statements of State Corporations (Training Colleges/Institutions) for the Financial Years 2018/2019, 2019/2020 and 2020/2021, laid on the Table of the House on Tuesday, 20th June 2023. Thank you.

Hon. Members, we have a Supplementary Order Paper which has been circulated and I am sure you have seen it. We are going to proceed as follows…

Thank you, Hon. Temporary Chairman. I beg to move:

THAT Clause 3 of the Bill be amended by deleting paragraph (c). (Question of the amendment proposed) (Question, that the words to be left out be left out, put and agreed to) (Clause 3 as amended agreed to) (Clause 4 agreed to) Clause 5 The Temporary Chairman (Hon. Farah Maalim): Hon. Caroli Omondi, do you have an amendment?

Yes, Hon. Temporary Chairman.

Thank you, Hon. Temporary Chairman. I beg to move:

THAT Clause 5 of the Bill be amended by—

Thank you very much, Hon. Temporary Chairman. I stand to oppose the proposed amendment. It is onerous. The Act has already taken care of it.

The Temporary Chairman (Hon. Farah Maalim): Please, talk loudly.

What he is proposing is adding more onerous responsibilities to the IEBC. So, I oppose the proposed amendments.

The Temporary Chairman (Hon. Farah Maalim): Anybody? Yes, Hon. Kaluma. Use the next microphone on your right side.

I thank you, Hon. Temporary Chairman. Kriegler advised that we avoid this deeply contentious and substantive amendments to laws governing elections, at least, one year to election. The Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission is an independent Commission established under Article 248 like others. It is a Commission we can oversight.

I had initially proposed an amendment to delete the entire Section 8A because the matters being assigned to an auditor, an independent audit firm under Section 8A, are already covered by the Commission under the current Section 8. I only thought it through and said that it could be dealt with later so that we do not engender suspicions.

There is no reason other than increasing costs unnecessarily, Hon. Members. Why should we have the IEBC in charge of the register, in charge of the audit of the register and its revision, and then take taxpayers' money and give it to another firm? We are looking at billions of shillings here for things which are not implemented.

Therefore, I oppose that provision. I request the Members to consider that it is a provision that could be looked at later, not now.

The Temporary Chairman (Hon. Farah Maalim): Fair enough. Leader of the Majority Party.

Hon. Temporary Chairman, I want to join the Hon. Kaluma. I have nothing more important to add.

I oppose.

Hon. Temporary Chairman, our Constitution requires a lot of transparency and lays down various accountability structures. What we are talking about here is the audit of the voter register for purposes of determining how many people have exited the register by way of death. The best way to do this, because the registration of voters is done by the IEBC while the registration of deaths is done by an independent office, is to have an independent person or institution outside those two entities conduct the reconciliation and inform the public about who remains validly and genuinely on the register.

That is why the practice has been to have an independent audit of the voter register, with a report or a summary of that report made available to the public for purposes of transparency, as contemplated in our Constitution. I am even shocked that Members who, a few years ago, were calling for an audit of the register are now opposing it because of…

The Temporary Chairman (Hon. Farah Maalim): Hon. Junet.

Hon. Temporary Chairman, this is not a new matter, as Hon. Caroli is trying to present it. This is an issue that this House dealt with a long time ago, and we said that the IEBC must engage independent auditors to audit the register and report to Parliament because the IEBC is overseen by Parliament. Constitutionally, it reports to Parliament. This is not a register for a co-operative society. This is a register of Kenyans. Data protection issues come into play. We are saying that the audit should be conducted as provided for in the law, but the auditors should report to Parliament. This is where the representatives of the people are.

The Temporary Chairman (Hon. Farah Maalim): You have to realise that this is at the Committee Stage. Hon. Wandeto, I will allow one or two more contributions. Please, give the microphone to Hon. Wandeto.

Hon. Temporary Chairman, I think we recently had somebody saying that dead voters would vote. Yesterday or the day before, you saw him appearing before the IEBC. The more safeguards we put in place to avoid these sorts of characters who are basically calling into question the integrity of our elections, the better.

Therefore, I support an independent audit as an extra layer of scrutiny. What harm does it bring to this process?

On a point of order. The Temporary Chairman (Hon. Farah Maalim): Hon. Kaluma, you have the Floor.

On a point of information. The Temporary Chairman (Hon. Farah Maalim): Do you wish to be informed by Hon. Gladys Boss?

Yes, she may. The Temporary Chairman (Hon. Farah Maalim): Proceed, Hon. Boss. I think the contention here is about the stage we have reached in our journey towards the next election. Perhaps the more contentious issue concerns the Kriegler Report. Maybe what you need to do is explain how fundamental this matter is at this time. Anyway, proceed.

Thank you, Hon. Temporary Chairman. I just wanted to confirm and inform Hon. Wandeto that there is no possibility, in our current electoral system, of dead voters voting unless you are going to bring fingers from the morgue. It is impossible. I know the system and I designed it. That is exactly why we introduced biometric identification of voters. In the old register, dead voters could vote, but right now it is impossible. Therefore, I think I want Kenyans to obliterate that mindset. That is how you begin to discredit elections before they happen. It is not going to happen.

On a point of order. The Temporary Chairman (Hon. Farah Maalim): What is your point of order?

I think we need to debate what the real issue is. The real issue is that our Constitution requires us to have an accurate register of voters. The best way to ensure that we have an accurate register of voters is to conduct an audit after registration and compare the various databases containing the relevant information. That is what we want.

The Temporary Chairman (Hon. Farah Maalim): That is the point of argument. Proceed, Hon. Kaluma.

Hon. Temporary Chairman, the audit provided for in the provision Hon. Caroli is addressing is an audit conducted after elections, not before. What he is talking about is verification of the register. Hon. Caroli, I beg you to look at Section 8A of the current Act, which you are amending, alongside Section 8. The point we are making, together with the mandate of the IEBC under Article 88 of the Constitution, is that the power to audit, revise and update the register is vested in the IEBC by the Constitution and Section 8.

Therefore, you cannot take that power away from the independent Commission, which Parliament can oversight, and transfer it to another body while requiring that body to report to the IEBC rather than to Parliament. That is why we are rejecting the amendment. It is unconstitutional.

Thank you, Hon. Temporary Chairman. I beg to move:

THAT Clause 9 of the Bill be amended in paragraph (a) by inserting the word “assembly” immediately after the word “county” in the proposed new paragraph (b). The justification is to clarify that the registration undertaken by the IEBC relates to county assemblies. It is a minor typographical error. We are simply adding the word "assembly" there. (Question of the amendment proposed) (Question, that the words to be inserted

be inserted, put and agreed to) (Clause 9 as amended agreed to) Clause 10 The Temporary Chairman (Hon. Farah Maalim): Mover, move the amendment.

Hon. Temporary Chairman, I beg to move: THAT Clause 10 of the Bill be amended by deleting paragraph (b) and substituting therefor the following new paragraph—

We are moving from nominations to registration. That is the whole point. (Question of the amendment proposed)

On a point of order, Hon. Temporary Chairman.

The Temporary Chairman (Hon. Farah Maalim): What is your point of order?

Thank you, Hon Temporary Chairman. I request that the mover explains a little further when he is moving. We can see that it is changing form ‘registration’ to ‘nomination’, but why? Can he give it a little more flesh so that it makes sense?

On a point of order, Hon. Temporary Chairman.

The Temporary Chairman (Hon. Farah Maalim): What is your point of order, Hon. Ichung’wah Kimani?

Hon. Temporary Chairman, just to guide the Chair, a number of the amendments he will move relate to the words ‘nominate’ and ‘register’. Just for information, the distinction is that Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) does not nominate or involve itself in the nomination of candidates. It

Hon. Temporary Chairman, while the amendment is very plausible and progressive, Kenyans are used to the term nomination. Therefore, if you tell your people you are going to be nominated by IEBC…

The Temporary Chairman (Hon. Farah Maalim): There is a fundamental difference between those two words.

Yes, that is why I say it is important that as we go along, IEBC must be called upon to explain to the ordinary Kenyan whether registering means as a voter or otherwise. You know, we are used to the parlance of nomination. The IEBC needs to be facilitated to conduct civic education so people can understand the difference. My supporters might wonder what is happening.

The Temporary Chairman (Hon. Farah Maalim): Fair enough. Hon. Caroli, take the last bite on this. Proceed.

Thank you, Hon. Temporary Chairman. I like the way the Leader of the Majority Party has explained it. I think it would be useful if he educated us, who are not in the Committee. They have introduced a new definition of nomination which is restrictive to only those who go into elections through political parties. There are independent candidates. Draw the distinction and educate us.

On a point of order, Hon. Temporary Chairman.

The Temporary Chairman (Hon. Farah Maalim): What is your point of order, Hon. Junet?

Hon. Temporary Chairman, if you look at the law as is, there is a lot of confusion whether political parties are the ones that conduct nominations or the IEBC. It is trying to distinguish the two. Now, political party nominees and independent candidates will be registered by IEBC at the same time during what we called the nomination day, that is now the registration day.

The Temporary Chairman (Hon. Farah Maalim): I think that is a very straightforward linguistic clarification.

(Question, that the words to be left out be left out, put and agreed to) (Question, that the words to be inserted in place thereof be inserted, put and agreed to) (Clause 10 as amended agreed to) (Clauses 11, 12, 13, and 14 agreed to) Clause 15 The Temporary Chairman (Hon. Farah Maalim): Mover?

Thank you, Hon. Temporary Chairman. I beg to move:

THAT Clause 15 of the Bill be amended by inserting the following new paragraphs immediately after paragraph (a)— (aa) by deleting subsection (2B); (ab) by deleting subsection (2C); I will try to explain further. This is to amend the Act by deleting the provisions that require involvement of IEBC. In these provisions, IEBC is supposed to be involved in party primaries, but we are now removing its involvement in party primaries and political party nominations. This aligns with the provisions of nomination of candidates through the powers of political parties. We are removing them as part of the functions of IEBC. They are not its function.

I beg to move. (Question of the amendment proposed) (Question, that the words to be inserted be inserted, put and agreed to) (Clause 15 as amended agreed to) Clause 16 The Temporary Chairman (Hon. Farah Maalim): Mover?

Thank you, Hon. Temporary Chairman. I beg to move:

THAT Clause 16 of the Bill be amended by deleting paragraph (c) and substituting therefor the following new paragraph—

Hon. Temporary Chairman, I support the amendment because independent candidates have suffered in this country. The Constitution allows people to run as independent candidates but getting symbols during an election is very difficult. For whatever reason, everyone wants to have a cock.

I do not know why. Every man wants to have a cock as his symbol. This amendment allows candidates from different parts of the country and from different counties to have the same symbol.

The Temporary Chairman (Hon. Farah Maalim): Fair enough.

The cock symbol can only be found in one county. Therefore, if a candidate from Migori has a cock in their symbol, the rest have to look for hens.

The Temporary Chairman (Hon. Farah Maalim): Hon. Caroli.

Hon. Temporary Chairman, while I agree with the intention, I think we are missing a point here. The differentiation should be within the electoral area, in other words, the seat. If you say an independent candidate within the same county, a Member of County Assembly (MCA) running within an electoral unit called a ward or a political party will be denied a symbol if it is being used by somebody else. It is not clear to me. I would like to get further explanation.

The Temporary Chairman (Hon. Farah Maalim): Mover, can you clarify whether it is within the same electoral area?

Hon. Temporary Chairman., the electoral area envisaged is the county.

The Temporary Chairman (Hon. Farah Maalim): Is it county or a ward?

It is within the county. You can have the same symbol in another county. A Senator who is being elected by the whole county cannot have a similar symbol to an MCA. It will look like they are members of the same party. That is why there should be a distinction within a county.

The Temporary Chairman (Hon. Farah Maalim): Next is Hon. Raso followed by Hon. Kiborek.

Thank you, Hon. Temporary Chairman. We make laws for very ordinary people. A lot of our rural folk are illiterate. They are assisted voters. If you mix symbols, no matter the level, it will create confusion during the election.

This is why this amendment is so important, and we must support it. The Temporary Chairman (Hon. Farah Maalim): Fair enough. Hon. Kiborek, are you still interested? Then let us have Hon. Millie Odhiambo.

Hon. Temporary Chairman, I support this. Even though the issue of the cock seems to be predominantly a male concern, women in our area tend to prefer something called dwasi, which translates to a dairy cow. The cock issue does not bother women. However, I do wish the Committee had also considered incorporating colours.

In every election, I find myself facing an independent candidate competing against me, and they are so confused. Often, they wear all white resembling church choirs. The Committee should have considered colours. It would be beneficial to allow independent candidates to have distinct colours. Nonetheless, this is a good amendment, and I support it.

The Temporary Chairman (Hon. Farah Maalim): Fair enough.

Hon. Temporary Chairman. I beg to move: THAT Clause 19 of the Bill be amended by deleting paragraph (a). The justification for this is that we need to maintain the autonomy of political parties concerning the party list. It is the province of political parties to decide whom they will nominate, in which area, and for what position.

The Temporary Chairman (Hon. Farah Maalim): This diminishes the possibility of people going to court. (Question of the amendment proposed) Hon. Millie Odhiambo followed by Hon. (Dr) Oundo.

The use of the term “nomination” is very confusing; there is a nomination to run for office and then the nomination in the party list. If this refers to the nomination in the party list, then I would urge the Committee to reconsider. It is very unfortunate when you are dealing with a party list, even if it is the mandate of the parties to nominate. For instance, you may have six slots but assign them all to one ward, disregarding other candidates in other wards.

I recall a time in Homa Bay County when Ndhiwa Constituency did not have a nominated candidate, while another constituency had up to three nominees. This goes against the principles of equality and fairness. I urge the Committee to reconsider this. I believe the nomination process by the Senate in this context is quite commendable.

I also join Hon. Millie Odhiambo, the "bad girl," in reconsidering this proposed deletion of provisions in the original Bill. The Bill requires that the party list must only include those who are registered voters in the respective ward. This is meant to prevent abuse by political parties. For example, in the County Government of Busia, you will find that the nominated Members in the County Assembly are individuals nobody has ever seen. They do not live there; they merely come, and some of them actually reside in America.

The intention is very clear because nominations to the County Assembly should be left to the people of the ward and the people of that county. Please, we respectfully ask that you consider this carefully. The intention here is to ensure that a person should not be nominated by a political party under subsection (iv) unless they are, at the date of submission of the party list by the political party, a registered voter in any of the wards in the county where they are nominated. This cured all the mischief.

The Temporary Chairman (Hon. Farah Maalim): Leader of the Majority Party.

Hon. Temporary Chairman, the beauty of this National Assembly lies in our diversity. When Hon. (Dr) Oundo, all the way from Funyula in Busia, engages intellectually with a member from Nyeri, such as in Tetu Constituency, or Kikuyu in Kiambu, that is the aspiration the Committee aims to achieve, and I fully support it.

The amendment we are proposing to delete is in two parts. I want to remind Members to look at the proposed new subsection 8A, which is the primary focus of our discussion. In Homa Bay County, when our late senator, Hon. Gerald Otieno Kajwang’ died, we proceeded to elect Hon. Moses Otieno Kajwang’, who was not a voter in Homa Bay but was registered in Nairobi. He has gone on to do very good work.

Hon. Members, there are numerous individuals who serve in party secretariats or in presidential campaigns. They may be based in Nairobi but are registered elsewhere. Are we suggesting that they cannot be nominated after elections or during elections to serve in the Nairobi County Assembly, even though they vote in Homa Bay County or elsewhere? If this principle is good for the National Assembly, let us apply it to the County Assembly, accommodating the diversities already mentioned.

The second part states that nominations under sub-section (iv) by a political party shall ensure equitable representation from all wards within the respective county. This is what Hon. Millie has referred to. To illustrate, we have 40 wards in Homa Bay County. Assume that only one gender is elected. That means the maximum number to be nominated from the opposite gender is 20, for gender balance. Now, how do you ensure equity among those 20 people? How do you spread them across the 40 wards? What is the arrangement for equity? The point, therefore, is that it is impracticable. What we do, in terms of the party processes and the Political Parties Act, is to require the parties to have regional balance. However, you cannot provide for it in this Elections Act. It is impracticable to implement.

On a point of order, Hon. Temporary Chairman.

The Temporary Chairman (Hon. Farah Maalim): What is your point of order, Hon. Junet? Hon. Junet does not seem to be ready. Hon. Millie, proceed.

Thank you, Hon. Temporary Chairman. I do not know why everybody is calling me “Winnie” today.

The Temporary Chairman (Hon. Farah Maalim): No, I called you Millie.

Today, you have baptised me, Winnie. I think it is because I was defending Winnie Odinga the other day. That aside, based on the explanations given, I have noticed that there are two issues. Initially, I was focusing on the issue of “A”. My concern, which I wish the Committee would address, is the abuse of that process. From listening to the Members, the concern is that if I sit as a chairperson or an official of a party, I may ensure that my brother, my sister and my uncle are spread out. It cannot be that it is only your family that can bring diversity to Kenya. Let the process not be misused.

On the second issue, which Hon. Kaluma has raised, I wish the Committee would reconsider retaining this provision because it is not about equality; it is about equity. Equity does not mean giving everyone an equal share. For instance, if we only have five nomination slots for women in Homa Bay, it is okay if only five constituencies benefit and the other three do not. We cannot manufacture what is not available. That is equity. However, it would be wrong for all five slots to go to one constituency. That is not right. Equity…. (A Member spoke off the record) I am on a point of order. I am an expert on issues of equity and equality. Equality means giving everybody the same number, while equity means redressing and ensuring justice. They are not the same. Equity is justice. For instance, consider the Equalisation Fund that we have established here. That is why Northern Kenya gets more money than other areas. If it were equality, everybody would get the same amount of money. However, if it is equity, only areas that have been marginalised in the past get it. Therefore, it does not have to go to everybody.

I am calling on the Committee to reconsider and not delete the 8B.

You have made your point, Hon. Millie, not Winnie. I have known you as Millie since the days you were at Cradle. Did we have something called Cradle at one time?

On a point of order, Hon. Temporary Chairman.

The Temporary Chairman (Hon. Farah Maalim): Hon. Junet, what is your point of order?

Hon. Temporary Chairman, one of the reasons we have a problem with the Constitution is that we made a Constitution to address all our suspicions.

The Temporary Chairman (Hon. Farah Maalim): Yes, all our fears.

Moi used to arrest people, so now we have to do this. This should be the prerogative of a political party. Even if you legislate here, they will find a way to circumvent it. I am a party operative, and I know what I am talking about. Do not waste your time. You can legislate, but they will find a way around it. I assure you.

The amendment proposes that all the wards be equal; however, as Hon. Kaluma stated, if we have 50 wards and only 6 nomination positions are available, if you do not allocate a quarter to each ward, those that miss out will go to court and ask why they have been left out. Let us not legislate morality.

Hon. Temporary Chairman… (Hon. Junet Mohamed and Hon. Millie Odhiambo-Mabona consulted loudly) The Temporary Chairman (Hon. Farah Maalim): Order! Hon. Junet and Hon. Millie, you are senior Members of the House. Please, allow the House to continue.

Hon. Temporary Speaker, I beg to move: THAT the Bill be amended by deleting Clause 20. The proposed amendment is sufficiently covered under the Elections (General) Regulations, 2012. We do not need to legislate what is already provided for in the Regulations.

Thank you. The Temporary Chairman (Hon. Farah Maalim): Clause 20 to be deleted?

Yes. (Question proposed)

On a point of order, Hon. Temporary Chairman.

The Temporary Chairman (Hon. Farah Maalim): Yes, Hon. Caroli. You will have your say, even if you are in the Minority. Proceed.

Thank you for that. There is a very important element when it comes to polling stations called geo-referencing. I had a proposal that, while adopting this amendment, we insert the requirement for geo-referencing for every polling station so that when the list of polling stations is published, each has a specific geo- location identity. Now you are surprising us by again saying that you are deleting it. We are opposing. We want to have geo-referencing of polling stations.

This proposal is not about polling stations being geo-referenced. It is just about gazettement since the proposed amendment is already sufficiently covered under those Regulations. Notably, geo-referencing happens even now. That is why even the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) staff have to send the forms from the tallying centres within the respective polling stations. So, it is already geo-referenced.

The Temporary Chairman (Hon. Farah Maalim): Hon. Oundo and then Hon. Kaluma.

I think the intention of the amendment, as contained in the Bill, was to progressively make the election a transparent process. That is why this provides for the point, place or places as a polling station for each electoral area, and then requires publication in the Gazette and electronically of all the polling stations. This is meant to address allegations of non-existent polling stations. So, the purported amendment was to make the polling stations all over the country public. Now, removing it and only providing for it in the Regulations defeats the essence of making an election transparent and accountable. We are simply asking that the geo-reference be published.

The Temporary Chairman (Hon. Farah Maalim): You have made your point. Hon. Junet, proceed, followed by Hon. Kaluma.

I totally agree with what Hon. Oundo is saying. He is absolutely right, and that is the right thing to do.

The Temporary Chairman (Hon. Farah Maalim): Which is?

That we need to publish and gazette the polling stations. However, that has been taken care of. It is in the Regulations, which are subsidiary laws. The Regulations were passed by this House, and they have the force of law.

This provision is already covered in the Elections (General) Regulations. For the benefit of Members, let us reiterate to the general public what happens. Before a place is designated as a polling station, it is first gazetted as a voter registration centre. When it gets the population, it is gazetted as a polling station under those Regulations. When you are registering as a voter, you register to a specific polling station which is already gazetted. That is why we are saying this provision is superfluous.

The Temporary Chairman (Hon. Farah Maalim): Member for West Mugirango.

Thank you, Hon. Temporary Chairman. I am a Member of the Departmental Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs and I confirm that the Committee interrogated this Bill. As we speak, IEBC has already published the polling stations that will be used in the 2027 elections. Registration of voters is already happening in those polling stations. This deletion is for purposes of ensuring that we do not confuse voters. Regulations require that polling stations be gazetted, and they have already been so gazetted.

Thank you. The Temporary Chairman (Hon. Farah Maalim): Hon. Raso, are you satisfied?

Hon. Temporary Chairman, I would like to support this amendment. I am a pastoralist and I represent pastoralists. There is something called a mobile polling station. During difficult seasons, pastoralists move around. You can imagine 200, 300, 500 or 1,000 of your voters move to different wards and constituencies. That is why this regulation is important, and some of us will follow it up so that no person is omitted from voting.

The Temporary Chairman (Hon. Farah Maalim): Fair enough, you have made your point. I now put the question.

(Question, that the words to be left out be left out, put and agreed to) (Clause 20 deleted) Clause 21 The Temporary Chairman (Hon. Farah Maalim): That is also another deletion. Proceed.

Thank you, Hon. Temporary Chairman. I beg to move:

THAT the Bill be amended by deleting clause 21. This amendment was supposed to raise the number of voters per polling station from 700 to 1,000. The more voters there are at a polling station, the longer the voting process will take. Therefore, the Committee proposes retaining the previous limit of 700 voters and rejecting this amendment. (Question of the amendment proposed) (Question, that the words to be left

out be left out, put and agreed to)

Hon. Temporary Chairman, I beg to move:

THAT the Bill be amended by deleting Clause 22. What I am proposing is the deletion of Clause 22. The reasons for which I make that move are two: One, this is a very substantive provision. It is a provision we pushed very hard last time. I know that there have been amendments through nullifications of various subsections of the current provision. But this amendment merely proposes to legislate what the courts have decided. If you look at what is now proposed as Section 39(1), for instance, what it is adding is that the results at a polling station shall be final.

That was decided by the Supreme Court in Raila 1, Raila 2 and Raila 3. It is not adding something. It is already in the realm of judgement law and practice, and well settled by the highest court. If you look at the various provisions, we are just touching things, rewriting law and deleting what exists already. For that reason, this is a very substantive provision. This is the kind of provision the Kriegler Commission advised, that we should not touch it a year to election but leave it intact.

I thank you, Hon. Temporary Chairman. (Question of the amendment proposed) The Temporary Chairman (Hon. Farah Maalim): Hon. Members, we must first address the deletion. If the Motion to delete is defeated, we will then proceed to the amendment. You can only amend text that has not been deleted. Hon. Millie, are you moving to delete the amendment?

No, I want to speak to it. I know that if this amendment is carried, then Hon. Caroli cannot bring any amendment. But I just wanted to say that perhaps on the basis of the Kriegler Report, I might support it. Otherwise, if a matter has been decided by court, Parliament has the role to legislate. We should therefore legislate. It is only that the timing may be wrong. But on matters that have been decided by court and we have been told as Parliament to legislate, we should.

The Temporary Chairman (Hon. Farah Maalim): Okay, proceed, Chair. Hon. Caroli, you will have your moment. We are dealing with the deletion now. Hon. Aden, if you want to contribute to the deletion, it is okay.

Thank you, Hon. Temporary Chairman. Hon. Speaker, I support the deletion for two primary reasons: First, all judicial precedents are already integrated into our jurisprudence. Regardless of whether we legislate, the decisions of the Supreme Court constitute a fundamental part of the laws of Kenya. Second, we must avoid the perception of tinkering with a critical section of our election laws, especially since we are less than 10 months away from a general election. The provision in question has been heavily litigated across our last three major elections, and we should maintain its current form. Any subsequent actions by IEBC will be sufficiently guided by existing jurisprudence. I support the deletion.

The Temporary Chairman (Hon. Farah Maalim): Hon. Caroli Omondi.

Hon. Temporary Chairman, with all due respect, I think we are running a scam on Kenyans by saying some things here. That because of the Kriegler Report we cannot legislate. I was part of the group that recruited him. I was in charge of Agenda Four for five years. That was just a recommendation in a report. It is not

Hon. Temporary Chairman, I support Hon. Kaluma’s amendment. It is said that it is only fools who do the same thing over and over and expect different results. And it is true, the Kriegler Report, as the Member for Suba South says, is not law. It was an advisory report adopted by a Parliament in which I did not even sit. It is just as we legislate every day in this House while making reference to the Mwongozo Code of Conduct in our public parastatals, yet it is not law. It would be foolish to never accept recommendations that were considered by those who were in this House ahead of us. We also agree that if we start tinkering with electoral laws and substantive issues touching on our electoral processes, more so in the transmission of results and all those other shenanigans around elections, we stand accused. And I say this with immense respect to many of us.

Yesterday, there were people saying they had been told to come and oppose this Election (Amendment) Bill, yet the person asking them to do so, does not even know what is contained in the Bill, they had simply been told by others out there.

Hon. Temporary Chairman, I wish to associate myself with the wisdom of the Mover of that amendment, Member for Homa Bay Town, Hon. Kaluma, and the Committee. Let us stick to what Kriegler Report advised our country to do.

The Temporary Chairman (Hon. Farah Maalim): Let us have as minimum debate as possible on this. Let us have the Leader of the Minority Party followed by Hon. Oundo.

Hon. Temporary Chairman, I rise to support the amendment by Hon. Kaluma.

First, the Kriegler Report was adopted by this House, the Parliament of the Republic of Kenya. It is a document of this House to which we can refer. More importantly, changing electoral laws on the eve of elections is what led to the post-election violence. The Electoral Commission of Kenya was reconstituted in a manner that was skewed and unacceptable to all parties, and the electoral laws were also changed by the House at the time. These actions brought about the post-election violence. That is what we are trying to avoid. Those are the lessons we learnt from the Kriegler Report. Therefore, when you propose that the transmission of results must come to my House, then…

The Temporary Chairman (Hon. Farah Maalim): Fair enough. Member for Embakasi West. (Hon. (Dr) Ojiambo Oundo spoke off the record) Order, Hon. Oundo. You will get an opportunity to contribute; do not worry. You have had many shots at it, while the Member for Embakasi West has also been raising his hand. Hon. Mwenje, proceed.

Thank you, Hon. Temporary Chairman.

On a point of order, Hon. Temporary Chairman. (Hon. Junet Mohamed spoke off the record) The Temporary Chairman (Hon. Farah Maalim): Hon. Boss is on a point of order.

On this argument, about the thinking that we can tinker this, we are too close to the election.

Secondly, even if you provide for transmission to the portal, those are not the final results. The whole point of having the transmission system was to have people calm down and enable the country to follow the counting of votes as it progresses. Ultimately, the physical copies of the ballots and the ballot boxes are brought to... (Hon. Peter Kaluma spoke off the record) The Temporary Chairman (Hon. Farah Maalim): Do you wish to be informed by Hon. Kaluma?

Yes. The Temporary Chairman (Hon. Farah Maalim): Hon. Kaluma, proceed and inform.

Hon. Kaluma, allow me to conclude before you proceed. We must understand how the process works. People vote. Once they have voted, the votes are counted and the results are announced orally. The actual results form is then signed, after which the Quick Response (QR) code is scanned and the results are uploaded to the portal. However, those are not the final results. The physical records are then taken to the constituency storage and kept there.

The Returning Officer carries the physical copy to Bomas for the purpose of compiling. If there is a query, the ballot box can be brought back. That is why, the last time the Supreme Court ordered a recount, the ballot box from Tiaty was brought to the Supreme Court, as well as the one from Mombasa, Jicho Pevu’s constituency, among others. That is how the process works.

There is, therefore, nothing wrong with the portal, and there is no need to change it. The Temporary Chairman (Hon. Farah Maalim): Hon. Kaluma.

Hon. Members, the point being made here is that no provision being proposed is intended to rewrite an existing provision that is already in law or one that has already been determined by the Supreme Court. The other information I wanted to give the Deputy Speaker is that it has already been decided and as we know, an election is a process. The process of the next election has begun. We cannot make changes midway.

The Temporary Chairman (Hon. Farah Maalim): Proceed, Hon. Oundo.

Hon. Temporary Chairman, the amendments contained in this Bill are what I suppose constitute the negotiated National Dialogue Committee (NADCO) Report. The idea was that whatever had been negotiated upon should be passed. Leader of the Majority Party, I thought you were part of the team?

The Temporary Chairman (Hon. Farah Maalim): Proceed. What is your position on the deletion?

Hon. Temporary Chairman, I am afraid that the deletion seems to be masking a very serious concern raised during the last elections: the issue of opaqueness and delays in transmitting election results. Why should Kenya wait for seven or eight days to declare presidential results yet a country such as the United States of America declares results eight hours after voting? The intention of this provision is to ensure that results are submitted electronically. (Hon. Junet Mohamed spoke off the record) The Temporary Chairman (Hon. Farah Maalim): Order, Hon. Junet.

(Question, that the words to be left out be left out, put and agreed to) (Clause 22 as amended agreed to) The Temporary Chairman (Hon. Farah Maalim): Order, Hon. Members. Whereas legislation, laws and the role of Parliament are sacrosanct and everyone knows, I remember being in this House when none of you was here, when we had an ordinary Act of Parliament called the National Accord and Reconciliation Act, 2008 which was superior to the Constitution. Even laws are part of a political process, and we are now chaperoning a political process. Proceed to the next clause. Clause 23

The Temporary Chairman (Hon. Farah Maalim): Hon. Kaluma, move your amendment.

Hon. Temporary Chairman, I beg to move:

THAT the Bill be amended by deleting clause 23 and substituting therefor the following new clause— Amendment of section 44 of Cap.

Hon. Temporary Chairman, you have asked a question. If you look at my amendment, it redrafts (iii) without the provisions contained in (i), (ii) and (iv). (Question of the amendment proposed)

Put the question. (Question, that the words to be left out be left out, put and agreed to) (Question, that the words to be inserted in place thereof be inserted, put and agreed to) (Question, that the words to be inserted be inserted, put and agreed to) (Clause 23 as amended agreed to) (Hon. Caroli Omondi spoke off the record) The Temporary Chairman (Hon. Farah Maalim): Your amendment has automatically fallen. Let us see the next one. Proceed. Clause 24

The Temporary Chairman (Hon. Farah Maalim): Chairperson.

Hon. Temporary Chairman. I beg to move: THAT clause 24 of the Bill be amended by deleting paragraph (c). The justification for that is that section 109 of the Act covers the making of regulations by IEBC for better carrying into effect the provisions of this Act. We therefore do not need another section to mirror section 109. It is already covered under Section 109.

Thank you. (Question of the amendment proposed) (Question, that the words to be left out be left out, put and agreed to)

Hon. Temporary Chairman. I beg to move: THAT clause 25 of the Bill be amended by deleting paragraph (a) and substituting therefor the following new paragraph—

Thank you, Hon. Temporary Chairman. I rise to oppose this provision because it is ambiguous. More importantly, I believe this will not pass the test of our Constitution. This provision talks of gross violation of a provision of the Constitution. How have you determined this issue? It reads, ‘‘serious reason for believing that a Member has.’’ How do you determine a serious reason? This is something that can be heavily abused and cannot stand. I beg that you consider the amendment. I know that Hon. Millie is moving an amendment, but in its current format, I urge the House to kindly let us not carry this amendment.

The Temporary Chairman (Hon. Farah Maalim): Hon. Junet.

Hon. Temporary Chairman, the office of a Member of Parliament is a very serious one. To qualify to become a President, the Constitution says you must be qualified to be a Member of Parliament. That is how important the office of a Member of Parliament is. Not a governor or a Member of the County Assembly (MCA). For you to become President, you must be qualified to become a Member of Parliament. You therefore cannot say that you want to recall a Member of Parliament where there are ‘‘serious reasons for believing.’’ This is not a faith matter. It is a serious matter. That you are ‘believing that a Member has committed a crime under national or international… the word ‘‘believing.’’ Who is that person to believe? This is not a faith issue.

Let us put serious grounds. I propose that we put grounds similar to those that we normally use to impeach the President and the Deputy President in the Constitution. Those should be the grounds for removal of a Member of Parliament from office. Because the qualification of a Member of Parliament for election is the same as the qualification for election of the President and the Deputy President. You must remove me on Constitutional grounds like violation of the Constitution or gross misconduct; serious things, not believing. What are you believing?

On a point of order, Hon. Temporary Chairman.

Thank you, Hon. Temporary Chairman. You can actually notice by the discussions that this proposed amendment might be defeated. But I was proposing a further amendment that might save it. That would make the proposed amendment Constitutional. This is because as it stands, you would be taking away the mandate of constituencies, otherwise as provided by the Constitution. With your permission, I could propose my further amendment.

Propose.

Hon. Temporary Chairman, I propose that the amendment by the Committee be further amended by deleting part (2)(b) and providing that, ‘‘where a Member has been convicted for committing a felony under national or international law.’’ This will ensure that you cannot be removed as a Member of Parliament because you accidentally hit somebody outside and they have not even died.

What you are providing here means that even if I have a traffic accident where my car hits another car and I am guilty, I stop being a Member of Parliament. It does not happen anywhere in the world. You must be convicted of a felony under national or international law. A felony is a crime where you deserve to be jailed for how many years? Who are the criminal lawyers? Over six years, I think. For a misdemeanor it is below three years, I think. So, we cannot have...

I am also suggesting that we amend further and delete the words ‘‘gross misconduct.’’ What is gross misconduct? Yesterday we were celebrating Hon. Esther. And we said that Hon. Esther Passaris is sexy. Somebody might presume that is gross misconduct on my part. I might...

But she is.

Yeah, that is your opinion that she is sexy. Somebody else might think she is not. Or somebody else might think that she is, but...

At 62 years?

Yeah, she is sexy. I believe she will be sexy even at 70.

The Temporary Chairman (Hon. Farah Maalim): Order. Order.

Hon. Junet is discrimination against those of us who are about to be 60 years and above.

The Temporary Chairman (Hon. Farah Maalim): Order! Hon. Millie Odhiambo and Hon. Junet, you are out of order.

On a point of order, Hon. Temporary Chairman.

The Temporary Chairman (Hon. Farah Maalim): What is your point of order?

Hon. Temporary Chairman, I seek your indulgence. Is it in order for Hon. Millie Odhiambo-Mabona to mislead the country and the House by saying that somebody at 62 years is still sexy…

Hon. Temporary Chairman, I want to bring to the attention of the House that the amendment that was proposed by the Committee is word

Hon. Temporary Chairman, I am not done. As it was said, the qualification of a President is same as that of a Member of Parliament.

Sit down. You are messing up the amendment.

You are not the Chairman. Since I have the Floor, you better sit down.

Hon. Temporary Chairman, this amendment is very good. Although I support the amendment by Hon. Millie, it is not good enough. Hon. Millie.

Yes.

You may be required to bring further amendments.

Hon. Millie is saying, “A Member may be recalled if they have been convicted of a felony under national and international law.” That is an improvement. But I request that we think of two elements. First, you may be convicted but you have opportunities for appeal. Therefore, the idea of exhaustion of an any appeal or the right of appeal to whatever level should be brought in.

Secondly, a felony is just a serious crime. The law does not define how many years you should be imprisoned. I request that, first, if Hon. Millie may agree, indicate that where a Member has been convicted and imprisoned for a term of, at least, six months. Those are the terms that will warrant removal of a Member from the House. Also, it should indicate where a Member has exhausted his rights of appeal under national and international law. It may be

Hon. Temporary Chairman, I have now changed my mind. We must agree that the qualifications to become a President should be the same as those of a Member of Parliament. Article 145 of the Constitution clearly stipulates the grounds for removal of a President.

If our qualifications, for purposes of an election, are the same, then our qualifications for removal must also be the same. The rules cannot change midday. If Article 145 of the Constitution has clearly stipulated that grounds for removal of a President are gross misconduct and believing that the President has committed a crime under national or international law. I thought that the word “believing” remains in faith-based places. However, now that it is in the Constitution where it says: “where there are serious reasons for believing that the President has committed a crime under national or international law.” And gross misconduct.

The Temporary Chairman (Hon. Farah Malim): “Believing.”

Yes. Those are the three grounds for removal of a President from office. We removed a Deputy President from office on those grounds in this House. Those two are all elected by the people. They have the same qualifications to be elected as Members of Parliament. For those reasons, I beseech the House that let us put the grounds for removal of Member of Parliament to be the same as that of the President.

On a Point of Order, Hon. Temporary Chairman.

On a Point of Order Hon. Temporary Speaker.

The Temporary Chairman (Hon. Farah Maalim): What is out of order, Hon. Kaluma? You will be followed by Hon. Mwenje. (Hon. Peter Kaluma spoke off the record) Go to the next microphone.

During his term of office, the President cannot be prosecuted because he is not subject to the jurisdiction of criminal courts. That is why we say: “If you have reasons to believe” regarding the removal of a President. However, for a Member of Parliament, you are subject to criminal jurisdiction. You should therefore be convicted and disabled from being a representative of the people for you to be recalled.

The Temporary Chairman (Hon. Farah Maalim): Let us have Hon. Mwenje.

I had not finished contributing. The Temporary Chairman (Hon. Farah Maalim): I want you to think through what you were saying.

I requested to rise on a point of order when the Hon. Chairman was contributing because Article 145 of the Constitution refers to the removal of a President. More importantly, what Hon. Kaluma has clarified is the issue I wanted to bring about. That, remember, it is a Motion that will be brought to the House supported by one third of the Members. It must then pass in this House with two-thirds, then have a trial in the Senate. If we retain it in that format, we will basically lower the threshold; once a Member is recalled, the voting, which we are about to go to in the next Section 26(A) of the Act, is final. However, the President has an opportunity to have a trial and even remain in office. However, we are not giving a Member of Parliament the same chance by bringing these provisions.

On a point of information, Hon. Temporary Chairman.

The Temporary Chairman (Hon. Farah Maalim): Hon. Junet, wants to inform you.

Let him inform me.

Hon. Temporary Chairman, what we are debating is the grounds for removal. However, the process of removal is different. That is why we have covered in this amendment Bill the process of removal from office. It says, ‘‘For a Member of Parliament to be removed, a third of the voters in every ward in his constituency must support the process of removing him.’’

The Temporary Chairman (Hon. Farah Malim): Registered voters?

Yes. What we are discussing here now is the ground for removal. I do not think there are higher grounds than the ones for removal of a President. Remember, the President was elected by seven million people. He also has the will of the people by seven or eight million. We are just laying ground for removal of a Member of Parliament, but the process is different. Instead of taking the Member to the Senate for trial the way we do the President, we are taking the process to the constituency where we have registered voters. That is why we have put a threshold of a third of the voters in every ward who must support that impeachment or removal.

On a Point of Order, Hon. Temporary Speaker.

The Temporary Chairman (Hon. Farah Malim): What is out of order, Hon. Kimani?

Let me support Hon. Junet in trying to prevail on Hon. Millie and Hon. Kaluma’s that we concur with the Committee on the grounds under Article 145 of the Constitution on removal of a President. Hon. Junet has ably demonstrated that there is a difference between the threshold and the process.

Second, I think that we are also forgetting that the Elections Act already has reasons why you would be recalled as a Member of Parliament which were nullified by the court. What Hon. Millie is saying is what was nullified by the court. We would therefore be legislating in vain because the court already nullified what you are saying. The Act states that:

On a point of order, Hon. Temporary Chairman.

The Temporary Chairman (Hon. Farah Maalim): What is your point of order, Hon. Millie?

Thank you. Hon. Temporary Chairman, I urge Hon. Members, to listen very carefully.

The Temporary Chairman (Hon. Farah Maalim): Yes.

I urge Hon. Ichung’wah to listen carefully.

First, I agree with the Hon. Chairman of the Committee when he reads Articles 144 and 145 of the Constitution except that they have nothing to do with a Member of Parliament. The heading on Article 144 read: ‘‘Removal of the President on grounds of incapacity.’’ (It is

Hon. Temporary Chairperson, the issue of recall has been a very contentious issue. While the amendments by the Committee are laudable. The one where there are serious reasons to believe that the Member has committed a crime under national and international law, including this aspect of a Member missing a series of sittings in Parliament, this is double punishment. In any case, in our Standing Orders and even in the law, if a Member of Parliament misses a certain number of sittings, automatically that Member loses their seat. That is already a provision. I would suggest - if the Committee Chairperson could listen, I do not know where he has disappeared to - we remove Clause B; just delete Clause B. Let the criminal process follow its course. Once you are unable to attend Parliament for a certain number of sittings, you automatically lose your seat. Why again this double jeopardy?

Hon. Temporary Chairperson, let us first be clear. The matter that we are dealing with is a constitutional matter. It is the Constitution that brought the provisions of recall. What we are expected of as a House is to create the enabling legislation on how to do the recall. Members of Parliament, since the new Constitution, have been hiding to implement this matter. Members are elected by their constituents from certain parties, for certain principles. They come to Nairobi here and change their principles, like what Hon. Oundo has done. He was elected an ODM Member, then he goes to something called The Equitable Party. Those people must be recalled. They must be brought back to their constituents. They want to hide here. Time for hiding is gone. You must be recalled by the people.

The Temporary Chairperson (Hon. Farah Maalim): Hon. Kuria Kimani?

Hon. Temporary Chairperson, I want to weigh in on this matter. I want to implore the whole adage that the law is an ass. Therefore, if the Constitution talks about the qualifications of a President which is the same as that of a Member of Parliament what should happen on this particular matter. The qualifications, the requirements of the President must be the same as that of a Member of Parliament. That is why I am praying that Hon. Millie should drop her amendments.

I support the amendments as proposed by the Leader of the Minority Party, Hon. Junet and the Committee. Let us stick to the Constitution. Whether we like it or not, that is the Constitution of the Republic of Kenya. If you are not happy about it, we are sorry but that is the Constitution of the Republic of Kenya. Go for a referendum and change the Constitution if you really want to change the Constitution.

The Temporary Chairperson (Hon. Farah Maalim): Hon. Members.

Hon. Temporary Chairperson, I wanted to propose, for the sake of proceeding, that the Chairperson agrees to drop parts B and C. Then we adopt Hon. Millie's as a new part B. Clause C is very vague and general. Gross misconduct, looking at you in a menacing manner may be misconstrued as gross misconduct.

The Temporary Chairperson (Hon. Farah Maalim): Order, order. There is an amendment by Hon. Millie Odhiambo. What is your point?

Hon. Temporary Chairperson, I want to oppose that amendment. I know it has not been moved, but let me ask you something. There are grounds for removal of the President of the Republic of Kenya in the Constitution. You want to water down now and tell me that I must be convicted first so that I can be removed. Conviction is a process. I have to be taken to the Court of Appeal, to the Supreme Court, to the Court of Elders, to the court of Hon. Farah, and to everywhere.

The Temporary Chairperson (Hon. Farah Maalim): Order, Hon. Junet.

Hon. Fara’s court is in Dadaab. That is where he listens to judgement. Let the grounds be like the ones for the President Deputy President.

The Temporary Chairperson (Hon. Farah Maalim): Order, Hon. Members. For your information, the law for removing a Member of Parliament from his position was very clear before. You have to be convicted, be sentenced to a time not less than six months, exhaust all the appellate processes, and only then can you lose your seat.

No, Hon. Temporary Chairperson. This is a very important issue. You see, removal of a Member of Parliament is not going to come necessarily only through criminal offence. There are people who are elected from their constituencies by their people on certain principles or parties, but when they reach here, they find something else and just go away. We want to recall somebody like Hon. (Dr) Oundo for

Thank you. The Temporary Chairman (Hon. Farah Maalim): Hon. Millie, can you move your amendment, and then we put your amendment to a vote?

Yes, Hon. Temporary Chairman.

(Hon. Kimani Ichung’wah and Hon. Kuria Kimani consulted loudly) The Temporary Chairman (Hon. Farah Maalim): Order, Leader of the Majority Party. We are listening to an amendment by Hon. Millie first, and then we put it to a vote.

Hon. Temporary Chairman, let me move a further amendment to the Committee's amendment.

The Temporary Chairman (Hon. Farah Maalim): Yes.

Hon. Temporary Chairman, I beg to move:

THAT, the Bill be amended in clause 25 by deleting sub-clause (2)(b) and (c) and substituting therefor with the words, “where a Member has been convicted for committing a felony under national or international law,” and by deleting paragraph (c). Hon. Temporary Chairman, one of the reasons is the Constitution. I agree with the Chair when he refers to the Constitution, except that he referred to the wrong Article. The right Article is 104 on the right to recall. Let me read for you the exact wording.

Hon. Temporary Chairman, unlike other Members, I speak my truth, even in an election year. Next year, Members will come back here in September, crying as people would remove them after just two months.

The Temporary Chairman (Hon. Farah Maalim): Order, Hon. Millie Odhiambo, you have made your point.

Mimi siogopi. Let us say the truth.

The Temporary Chairman (Hon. Farah Maalim): Order. (Question of the further amendment proposed) Okay, let us have the debate now.

Hon. Temporary Chairman, as representatives of the people, we are bound by the leadership and integrity provisions of the Constitution, especially Chapter 6. We cannot be here, constitutionally required to legislate on the recall of Members of Parliament, and then make it difficult for people to recall us. That is why I say that the position held by a Member of Parliament is held in trust. If the people have reason to believe that you have committed a crime, you should not tell them that you must first be convicted. The people elected you, and if they can muster the numbers, you should go home.

Hon. Temporary Chairman, I oppose this amendment by Hon. Millie, and support the amendment by the Committee. Let us make it easy for the people of Kenya to hold us to account. Hon. Temporary Chairman, you see the misbehaviour here in Parliament…

Hon. Temporary Chairman, while I sympathise with the sentiments of my sister, Hon. Millie, the reason we are here, and we are legislating today, is because the courts have found this Section unconstitutional. Section 45(2)(c) of the original Act, not the amendments, says that a Member of Parliament may be recalled if convicted of an offence under the Act. That is the provision that was declared unconstitutional. Therefore, we cannot sit here as a House and re-enact what has already been found unconstitutional. This amendment should not even see the light of day. (Hon. Millie Odhiambo-Mabona spoke off the record) It is true that Article 104 talks about recall, but you need to cross-reference all the Articles. Article 104 says Parliament should legislate. When we are legislating, we have to look for somewhere to reference, and we are referencing Article 145.

Again, we were here one and a half years ago, impeaching a Deputy President on the same grounds. We did not say that he was elected, as my leader said, with seven million votes. We used gross misconduct. Thank you.

The Temporary Chairman

(Hon. Farah Maalim):

Okay.

Yes. Hon. Temporary Chairman, I beg to move:

THAT, clause 30 be amended by deleting Clause 30. The essence of my amendment will be to delete Clause 30. I am doing so because the matters being dealt with under Clause 30 of the Bill are essentially the ones we amended in Clause 23. (Question of the amendment proposed) (Question, that the words to be left

out be left out, put and agreed to) (Clause 30 deleted) (Clause 31 agreed to) Clause 32 The Temporary Chairman (Hon. Farah Maalim): Proceed.

Hon. Temporary Chairman, I beg to move:

THAT the Bill be amended by deleting Clause 32. The essence of the amendment is to delete this Clause because it provides for evaluation of the electoral process by the IEBC. The power to evaluate the electoral process is already vested in Article 88 of the Constitution. So, this is over-legislation. (Question of the amendment proposed)

I totally agree with Hon. Kaluma, regardless of our differences. In any case, nothing stops a court of law from ordering scrutiny. This is over-legislation. I am sure the evaluation will not determine whether Hon. Oundo has changed his position. As the Leader of the Minority Party has stated, we are safe on that. Having a different political position is not a crime. We have another way of dealing with the matter. I totally agree with Hon. Kaluma. I support his amendment. We depart from political parties because they have deviated from their ideologies.

Point of information, Hon. Temporary Speaker.

Inform me, Leader of the Majority Party.

Hon. Temporary Chairman, I agree with Hon. Oundo that changing political affiliation is not a crime, but it is political conmanship. When you campaign to people espousing certain ideals of a political party and then, once elected, you depart from it, it amounts to political conmanship.

Give Hon. Oundo the microphone. He had not finished his contribution. He is a good man.

The Temporary Chairman (Hon. Farah Maalim): Okay, proceed.

Hon. Temporary Chairman, I was contributing, but I allowed him to inform me. I have received the information. Each political party has a manifesto or clear principles; these are the rule of law and protection of the marginalised…

The Temporary Chairman (Hon. Farah Maalim): Does that relate to Clause 32 of the Bill?

I am informing him that refusing to be a member of a political party, when it has diverted from its principles, is not political conmanship, but being true to the calling of the people.

The Temporary Chairman (Hon. Farah Maalim): Order.

Hon. Oundo, the political party is always right.

The Temporary Chairman (Hon. Farah Maalim): Order. (Question, that the words to be left out be left out, put and agreed to) (Clause 32 deleted)

Hon. Temporary Chairman, what I am proposing here is that...

The Temporary Chairman (Hon. Farah Maalim): Order. Move it first.

Hon. Temporary Chairman, I beg to move that the New Clause 4A be now read a Second Time.

The Temporary Chairman (Hon. Farah Maalim): Now proceed with your justification.

Hon. Temporary Chairman, I propose that we have a new register of voter transfers. We have voters who have transferred, but they are still in the register of where they were originally registered. For transparency, we should have a register of those who have transferred in the affected electoral areas.

Thank you. (Question, that the new clause be read a Second Time, proposed) The Temporary Chairman (Hon. Farah Maalim): Proceed, Hon. Kimani.

Hon. Temporary Chairman, I rise to oppose this particular amendment being proposed by Hon. Caroli Omondi. From the context, he wants the Commission to publish all the voters who transferred from one polling station to another. With all the noise and toxicity in the electoral cycle, that will profile these people who have transferred from one polling station to another.

We have heard statements being made by politicians about particular people being perceived to vote in a particular direction. They might not be allowed in particular places. When that information is available, it will be unfair and discriminatory. There should be no data published about people who have transferred from one polling station to another. Let us have the people who are registered in that particular polling station. As long as I am registered to vote in a particular polling station, it does not matter whether I was registered before moving there.

The Temporary Chairman (Hon. Farah Maalim): Hon. Raso.

Thank you very much, Hon. Temporary Chairman. Hon. Caroli is a lawyer of good standing who believes in the Constitution.

(Hon. Njeri Maina and Hon. Naomi Waqo consulted loudly) The Temporary Chairman (Hon. Farah Maalim): Order, Hon. Njeri Maina and Hon. Waqo.

Hon. Temporary Chairman, I rise to reject that particular amendment. Hon. Caroli is a lawyer of good standing. According to the Constitution, a voter can vote anywhere in the Republic of Kenya. If Hon. Caroli proposes that it is wrong to vote in Marsabit because you live in Nairobi, it is wrong. We should not allow it to happen.

Thank you. The Temporary Chairman (Hon. Farah Maalim): Hon. Njeri.

Hon. Temporary Chairman, I get the mischief that Hon. Kuria Kimani, Member for Molo, has spoken about. It is also critical because we have had conversations that apparently even aliens may be registered to vote and abuse the democratic rights of Kenyans. It is only fair to have full disclosure so that Kenyans can know who is voting at a particular polling station.

The Temporary Chairman (Hon. Farah Maalim): You have made your point, Hon. Njeri. It is well noted.

Hon. Gikaria.

On a point of order, Hon. Temporary Speaker.

Thank you, Hon. Temporary Chairman.

The Temporary Chairman (Hon. Farah Maalim): What is your point of order, Hon. Junet? Order, Hon. Gikaria.

Hon. Temporary Chairman, my colleague has imputed an improper motive about IEBC that aliens can be registered. We should not go in that direction because I know what she means. According to this group, anybody who is not in the Democracy for the Citizens Party (DCP), their grasshoppers’ Party, is an alien in Kenya.

On a point of order, Hon. Temporary Speaker.

The Temporary Chairman (Hon. Farah Maalim): What is your point of order?

Hon. Njeri has said aliens are possibly being registered. That goes to the sovereignty of the nation. I am standing on the relevant Standing Order provisions to require that she substantiates whether that is happening. It cannot be ignored.

The Temporary Chairman (Hon. Farah Maalim): Hon. Njeri, is it true that you said aliens are being registered?

I said “possibly”. It is very important for Hon. Kaluma to understand proper grammar. I said, “they may be registered”. We have seen in media stations that identity cards are being issued to persons who are not Kenyans.

I have indicated that aliens may. I presume that you understand the meaning of the word “may”. It is information in the public domain and implies that it can be done that way…

The Temporary Chairman (Hon. Farah Maalim): You said it is in public knowledge that identity cards are being issued to aliens.

It is in the public domain.

Point of Order, Hon. Temporary Chairman.

Point of information.

I am already on a point of order. The Temporary Chairman (Hon. Farah Maalim): Proceed, Hon. Gladys.

There has to be a clarification here. Currently, the IEBC is registering Kenyans in at least 22 to 25 countries—from Australia to Canada and the United States of America. These are Kenyan citizens who also hold dual passports as Canadian citizens. Is that person an alien? That is where the confusion is coming from. When you go to Uganda, you will also find that someone has dual citizenship and our country allows it. You are just not clear about it.

Hon. Kaluma rose on a point of order on a very important matter—the very serious and dangerous allegations purportedly made by Hon. Njeri. They also cast aspersions on the integrity of our electoral processes. The statements politicians utter carelessly on the Floor of this House, at funerals or in ‘grasshopper’ meetings, or wherever, have always led us into crisis every election year.

The Hon. Speaker did very well two weeks ago when Hon. Ndindi Nyoro tried to do the same on this Floor. We must maintain the same standards. Hon. Njeri Maina cannot use the Floor of Parliament to disparage the institution of the IEBC or perpetuate rumours, and then

Point of information, Hon. Temporary Chairman.

Hon. Temporary Chairman, I will allow the Leader of the Minority Party to inform me.

Hon. Temporary Chairman, I do not intend to impute any improper motive on anyone but what Hon. Njeri has said is fairly bad. I know, and I can tell you on the Floor of the House, without any reasonable doubt, that the alien that Hon. Njeri is talking about is you, the Hon. Chairman in this Committee of the whole House. Can you defend yourself?

A point of order on Hon. Junet. How can he call the Hon. Temporary Chairman an alien?

Thank you. I seek two weeks to bring evidence on the Floor of this House that it is happening. Thank you.

The Temporary Chairman (Hon. Farah Maalim): Order, Hon. Njeri. We have been talking about how people need to be properly informed in terms of language.

(Hon. Junet Mohamed consulted loudly with other Hon. Members)

Very well, Hon. Temporary Chairman. If I can, I will have a five-hundred-page document. Thank you.

The Temporary Chairman (Hon. Farah Maalim): Fair enough. It is so directed that you substantiate this on the 3rd of November when the House resumes.

(Question, that the new clause be read a Second Time, put and negatived) That is the end of that one. New Clause 13A THAT the Bill be amended by inserting the following new Clause after Clause 13— Amendment of section 26 of Cap. 7.

13A. Section 26 of the principal Act is amended by inserting the following new subsection after subsection (1)—

Hon. Temporary Chairman, I beg to move that the New Clause 13A of the Bill be read a Second Time.

The justification is that Section 26, which provides additional disqualifications for registration of a candidate, is the appropriate section as proposed by the Senate. Hon. Temporary Chairman, as you will remember, we asked for a deletion of Clause 3, and are re- ordering what was in Clause 3 to be part of this New Clause 13A. It is just rearranging.

(Question, that the new clause be read a Second Time, proposed)

Put the Question! (Question, that the new clause be read a Second time put and agreed to) (Question, that the new clause be added to the Bill, put and agreed to) (Several Members consulted loudly) The Temporary Chairman (Hon. Farah Maalim): Order, Hon. Oundo, Hon. Caroli and Hon. Junet.

I beg to move that New Clause 26A be read a Second Time. This Clause relates to the debate we had earlier on the recall of Members. We have already discussed the grounds for recall. This Clause provides the procedure for recalling a Member of Parliament.

It seeks to safeguard the integrity of the recall election. A Member may be recalled on the grounds we have already approved, provided that the recall is supported by a simple majority of the voters participating in the recall election. In addition, for a Member of the National Assembly, at least one-third of the registered voters in every ward of the affected constituency must concur. For a Member of the Senate, at least one-third of the registered voters in every constituency of the affected county must concur.

(Question, that the new clause be read a Second Time, proposed) The Temporary Chairman (Hon. Farah Maalim): Hon. Millie.

Thank you, Hon. Temporary Chairman. Whether I stand alone or not, I stand by my truth. I oppose this amendment. If we adopted the same grounds for the removal of the President, we should also adopt the same process for removal.

We are imposing a very onerous task on Kenyans. After every election, we could have re-elections in almost every constituency within two months because the proposed threshold is too low. Kenyans are very political. Whether one wins fairly or not, opponents may still challenge the outcome.

I once met a person who lost an election by more than 15,000 votes. Seventeen years later, he told me that I stole his election. That is the reality, whether people like it or not. If this amendment is passed, we will see the consequences as a country. I do not engage in political populism. This is a wrong provision. We should adopt the same standard as provided for the President, including the two-thirds threshold and the process through Parliament. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

The Temporary Chairman (Hon. Farah Maalim): Hon. Junet, followed by Hon. Caroli.

Hon. Temporary Chairman, I consider the issue of recall one of the most difficult matters to legislate on because it directly affects Members of this House.

Yes. The Temporary Chairman (Hon. Farah Maalim): As the Member for Dadaab, I know that there are several electoral systems. These include the majoritarian and proportional representation systems. We must consider the implications of the provisions Hon. Junet is proposing.

Hon. Temporary Chairman, there is a court ruling…

The Temporary Chairman (Hon. Farah Maalim): Yes… (Hon. Junet Mohamed spoke off-the-record)

Thank you, Hon. Temporary Chairman. As a Member of the Justice and Legal Affairs Committee (JLAC), I wish to inform the House that the proposed amendment seeks to align the law with court judgments.

Previous Parliaments enacted legislation prescribing the grounds for recalling a Member. However, the courts nullified those grounds, allegedly for lack of adequate public participation. I emphasise the word “allegedly”, notwithstanding that there was no law regulating public participation at the time.

We respect the courts, but their decisions nullified the grounds enacted by Parliament. This House must, therefore, align the law with those decisions and undertake public participation. The people of Kenya must be allowed to determine the grounds on which they may wish to recall their Members of Parliament. The amendment is, therefore, consistent with the court decisions. The public has not yet provided us with the grounds on which it wishes to recall a Member of Parliament.

We must also remember that candidates in Kenya rarely accept defeat. Whenever they lose an election, they claim that it was rigged. We should, therefore, allow the process to proceed and let the country move forward, recognising that the winner takes all.

I thank you, Hon. Temporary Chairman, for the opportunity to contribute. The Temporary Chairman (Hon. Farah Maalim): Hon. Caroli Omondi.

Thank you very much, Hon. Temporary Chairman. I think we need to really understand what the basis of a recall is constitutionally. By the way, it is one of those aspects of our Constitution that were blindly borrowed from the South African Constitution.

The process of recalling Members of Parliament lies in the fact that within those constitutional systems, it is the parties that go to elections. So, in South Africa, when you go to vote, you vote for a party; you do not vote for an individual. It is the same concept as the party list.

So, where the party is on the ballot, and they win 60 per cent of the vote, they allocate seats to 60 per cent of the parliamentary membership; the party has the power to recall you when they disagree with you. That is the basis of recall. In a system where an individual is elected by the people directly, you have to wait for a referendum in the next general election, unless you have been charged in a criminal court, tried and convicted. In which case, even in our old Constitution, if you were sentenced to more than six months, you were automatically out of your seat. So, we need to understand the concept of recall.

Even if we want to provide the conditions upon which you should be recalled, we must provide mechanisms for trial, which are independent of the electorate, so that you will be subjected to a court process or another tribunal that will find you guilty, after which the members of the public can recall you.

This is a serious constitutional question. The Temporary Chairman (Hon. Farah Maalim): You are not listening.

Yes, and please, pay attention. Today I have witnessed something very strange in this House. Recommendations that were built out of the National Dialogue Committee (NADCO) when Baba was alive have been trashed and thrown out in all their forms today because it is now convenient. So, please, listen to me. One

You can only be recalled after you have been tried and found to have committed gross misconduct when you have been directly elected by the people. Otherwise, they wait until the next elections.

Thank you, Hon. Temporary Chairman.

On a point of information, Hon. Temporary Chairman.

The Temporary Chairman (Hon. Farah Maalim): Okay, what is your information?

Hon. Members, this is what the previous law…

This is what the previous law prescribed, in agreement with the position I see Parliament taking. It was previously Section 48 of the Elections Act, Hon. Temporary Chair. It provided that a recall election shall be valid if the number of voters who concur in the recall election is, at least, 50 per cent of the total number of registered voters in the affected county or constituency. So, that is what it was.

This was taken to court in the Katiba Institute case, and the court said this is too onerous for the people seeking to recall their representative to do so. It is among the provisions that were, therefore, nullified, and Parliament was required to enact provisions.

What I see the Committee was dealing with, Hon. Temporary Chair, is that if you put 50 per cent, the court has said no. So, it means the court wants less. Now, if you go lower, how do you ensure that it is not a localised area, but people who are generally spread across the constituency? And that is why I think there was a settlement on a third in each ward, which still goes to this. You may agree within a ward, but if you have, like, seven wards, how will people agree, including in your own ward, to recall you? That is what we are dealing with.

So, your argument, Temporary Chair, is right; the guidance from the Chair is right, and the guidance and the thinking from the Members is right, but the court disagreed with us.

The Temporary Chairman (Hon. Farah Maalim): Order. The court disagreed with this because of the lack of public participation. (Hon. Peter Kaluma spoke off-the-record) The Temporary Chairman (Hon. Farah Maalim): Order! Order! Hon. Kaluma, you are a lawyer and a learned friend. You have to understand the basis on which the court took a position on this matter. It was only for one reason. It was not about the merits and demerits or anything else, but for lack of public participation. (Hon. Peter Kaluma spoke off-the-record) Adequate public participation. There you go. I am a member of the Departmental Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs by the way. You are not a member of that Committee.

Yes, Hon. Raso.

Thank you, Hon. Temporary Chairman. If we go by this, many Members serving in this House will lose their seats. This is because getting one-third from every ward to oppose a sitting Member is very easy. It is just like closing your eyes and

Thank you, Hon. Temporary Chairman. Let me give an example. Let us say the ward is in Nairobi. A ward has 26,000 people. One-third of that is about 8,000 people. If I have five wards, some of which may have 40,000 people, it will be high. It will be the same, even if it is less in Dadaab Constituency, to use your constituency, Hon. Temporary Chairman. Getting them together will be a task. Let us not appear as though we are trying to protect ourselves against something that may eventually go to court and come back to bite us. I think one-third per ward is okay.

The Temporary Chairman (Hon. Farah Maalim): Hon. Members, (Question, that the new clause be read a Second Time, put and negatived) Let us go to the next one. New Clause 33

The Temporary Chairman (Hon. Farah Maalim): Chairman, move it. THAT the Bill be amended by inserting the following new Clauses immediately after Clause 32— Amendment of section 109 of Cap. 7.

Hon. Temporary Chairman, I beg to move that the new Clause 33 be now read a Second Time.

This clause proposes to delete spent provisions requiring proposed regulations to be approved by the National Assembly, which applied to the first General Election under the enactment of the Elections Act. Therefore, this is house cleaning.

The other thing is that it requires the IEBC to publish regulations and subject them to the constitutional requirement of public participation. Therefore, in one area we are deleting spent provisions while in the other it is required that the regulations be published and subjected to the constitutional requirement of public participation.

The Temporary Chairman (Hon. Farah Maalim): Hon. Members,

Hon. Temporary Chairman, as much as I agree with the amendment and I hope the Chairperson is listening, I thought that probably New Clause 33 could just be an over-legislation. This is because the Statutory Instruments Act is very clear that before regulations are presented or submitted, they must demonstrate that there was public participation, and that is why they submit documents to prove the same. I really do not see the need to repeat the same thing that is already expressly provided for in the Statutory Instruments Act. That will be over legislation and copying and pasting. I just wonder why.

(Question, that the new clause be read a Second time put and agreed to) (Question, that the new clause be added to the Bill, put and agreed to) Clause 2

Hon. Temporary Chairman, I beg to move: THAT, Clause 2 of the Bill be amended by—

On a point of order, Hon. Temporary Chairman.

The Temporary Chairman (Hon. Farah Maalim): What is your point of order?

I want to bring to your attention that in the New Clause 26A that we just agreed to, the Senate recommended that only a simple majority is required for a recall election. However, we recommended that a recall election requires at least one-third of registered voters in every ward. We have now gone back to a simple majority being sufficient to recall a Member of Parliament.

The Temporary Chairman (Hon. Farah Maalim): A simple majority of what?

A simple majority of voters who can vote in a recall election. That is what the law is.

The Temporary Chairman (Hon. Farah Maalim): Let us proceed with Clause 2. The Chairperson of the Departmental Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs has an amendment. Proceed.

Hon. Temporary Chairman, I beg to move: THAT, Clause 2 of the Bill be amended by—

Hon. Temporary Chairman, this is a very important amendment. This is because currently, identification at the polling centre is pegged to the document you used to register as a voter. However, every citizen of this country is entitled to vote or elect their leader. The lack of a valid driving licence or passport is not a reason for any voter to be disenfranchised and sent away from the polling centre.

Therefore, this amendment makes universal suffrage practical and ensures nobody is denied their right to cast their vote merely because of expired documents. An expired passport is just an expired travel document. Citizenship never expires. Therefore, this will help increase voter turnout. After this legislation is passed, we will urge Kenyans to turn out at polling stations to vote with whatever identification documents they have.

(Question, that the words to be left out be left out, put and agreed to) (Question, that the words to be inserted in place thereof be inserted, put and agreed to) (Clause 2 as amended agreed to)

Sorry, Hon. Temporary Chairman. I was waiting for the microphone. I beg to move the following Procedural Motion:

THAT, pursuant to the provision of Standing Order 33, I beg to move that the sitting time be extended until the conclusion of business indicated as Orders No. 7 and 8 in today’s Order Paper.

Hon. Temporary Chairman, I second. The Temporary Chairman (Hon. Farah Maalim): Fair enough. (Question proposed) (Question put and agreed to) (Title agreed to) (Clause 1 agreed to) Mover.

Hon. Temporary Chairman, I beg to move that the Committee do report to the House its consideration of the Elections

(Amendment)

(No.2)

Bill

(Senate Bill No. 29 of 2024)

and its approval thereof with amendments.

(Question proposed)

(Question put and agreed to)

Order, Hon. Members. (Hon. (Dr) Ojiambo Oundo consulted loudly) Order, Hon. Oundo. Mover.

Hon. Deputy Speaker, I beg to move that the Motion for agreement be amended by inserting the words, “subject to recommittal of New Clause 26A”. I request Hon. Kaluma to second the Motion.

Hon. Deputy Speaker, I second. The reason for this recommittal is that whilst we had prescribed the grounds for the recall of a Member of Parliament…

Hon. Mwenje, let us pay attention. This is important.

Hon. Deputy Speaker, we are at an important stage. We are seeking to comply with the Constitution and court decisions. We have prescribed the grounds for the recall of a Member of Parliament. However, those grounds are very easy to invoke. We have not provided for the number of people or voters who should sign in approval of a recall petition. If we do not recommit this provision, even one or two people could cite the prescribed grounds and initiate the recall of a Member of Parliament. It is, therefore, necessary that we recommit this provision to prescribe a minimum number of voters in a constituency who must support a recall. These are the people who elect a Member of Parliament, otherwise, we risk placing the country in a state of perpetual elections and contestations throughout the term.

I second. (Hon. Millie Odhiambo-Mabona spoke off-the-record)

Let me propose the Question first. (Question proposed) Now you can debate. Hon. Millie, you can go first.

Thank you, Hon. Deputy Speaker. It is very good to stand on principle. I have listened to Hon. Kaluma, who is speaking to the principle of representation. He argues that we should not give people flimsy reasons to recall Members of Parliament.

That is why, in my proposed amendment, I indicated that we need to be serious when dealing with the recall of a Member of Parliament. I do not pander to populist issues. It is for that reason that I reluctantly support the recommittal. However, we need to be very serious when dealing with matters of this nature. We often find ourselves, as Members of Parliament, frustrating ourselves.

Hold on, Hon. Millie. I want you to speak only to the Motion to recommit or not to recommit. We shall then return to discuss the merits of the new clause.

Hon. Deputy Speaker, the reason I am speaking to the issue of recommitting or not recommitting is precisely that we do not always stand on matters of principle. We need to be serious and listen to one another. Sometimes we get too excited and end up shooting ourselves in the foot. Otherwise, I reluctantly support the recommittal. (Question put and agreed to)

Mover, Hon. Kuria. (Hon. Mogaka consulted loudly) Hon. Mogaka, please allow us to proceed. Proceed, Hon. Kimani.

Thank you, Hon. Chairlady. I beg to move: THAT, New Clause 26A be amended by inserting the following new Clause after Clause 26— Amendment of section 47 of Cap.

Now you can debate. Yes, Hon. Mogaka.

Thank you, Hon. Chairlady. I wish to apply my legal mind to the proposed amendment. If we propose a 50 per cent recommendation per ward, that presupposes that the other 50 per cent are against it. We will, therefore, be enacting a likely deadlock where we have a tie. On what basis will a Member be recalled if 50 per cent of each ward says he gets recalled and the other 50 per cent refuses?

I suggest that for us to be progressive, the irreducible minimum threshold for recall of any Member to be 50 per cent plus one so that we know that a ward has decisively made a decision to recall. While I appreciate the recommendation, let us not create a deadlock within the legislation and, therefore, create a new crisis.

I thank you.

The Minority Leader.

Hon. Chairlady, thank you very much for giving me an opportunity to speak on this matter. I wish the Leader of the Majority Party can listen to me. I want to bring to the attention of this House that we did this legislation that we

Leader of the Majority Party.

Hon. Chairlady, let me say, first, that it is true what Hon. Junet says that the 50 per cent in every ward will suffer the same fate as the earlier provision in the Act. In any case, many of us are not elected by 50 per cent of the registered voters in each ward. That is a fact of life. Therefore, you cannot say that I was elected by a simple majority but now impose a higher threshold for recall. I just want to prevail upon us to agree with the Committee's proposal of a third of the registered voters in every ward. In any case, it will still not be easy for someone acting out of malice to convince 50 per cent plus one of the people voting in an election. If that happened, it would mean that you were already unpopular with your people and that there was something you had done to deserve to go home.

Secondly, if someone can convince a third of your voters in every ward, including your home ward, that you should go home, Hon. Mulyungi, it would mean that there is something absolutely wrong that you have done to the people.

I agree that we should not legislate in fear. We legislate for posterity. We do not legislate for ourselves. I agree with the Committee, and I want to prevail upon the Member who moved the recommittal to restore the earlier provision of a third in every ward and a simple majority. Since I am on record on national television, I do not want to say much. However, in whose interest are we legislating? Is it in your interest or in the interest of the people of Kenya?

I beg to stop there.

Okay, Hon. Daudi.

Hon. Chairlady, I wish to move a further amendment to the amendment moved by Hon. Kimani Kuria. I want us to restate the original proposed Section 26A in the Order Paper, which read as follows:

THAT the Bill be amended by inserting the following new Clause after Clause 26— Amendment of section 47 of Cap. 7. 26A. Section 47 of the principal Act is amended by subsection (5) and substituting therefor the following new subsection—

Can I put the question? Let me allow Hon. Kuria.

I think it is important for us to really understand the importance of this particular provision because there are two matters that have been proposed in New Clause 26A. One is a recalling. If constituents are not happy with you, they make a decision to recall you. That is why we say without this further amendment they will need at least a third of every ward to recall you. As further amended, I agree with the Chair of the committee, but also important for you to note 26A(5)(a). A recall election shall be decided by a simple majority of the voters voting in the recall election. After the recall, there will be an election. It is provided for in 26A(5)(a) that whoever wins that election will be determined by a simple majority. I wanted to make that clear for this House because there was contestation behind the scenes about what a simple majority of the voters meant in this amendment.

With that, I support the Chair’s amendment.

Hon. Farah.

Hon. Deputy Chairlady, our Constitution was a hodgepodge of many other constitutions in the world. As Hon. Caroli had put it, and as part of the 10th Parliament that passed that Constitution, we borrowed many things from many different places. The environment in those different places was different. Our electoral system was different from theirs. For example, South Africa has what you call proportional representation. Every party assumes that it is going to win all the 290 constituencies, as we have it here now, and they make the list of the people who will be in that election. If the party wins 60 per cent of the votes, then it stops there. If it wins 5 per cent, it stops at that. That is why the party is more important. The relationship between the constituency and the individual is different because you represent the nation.

In our country, I know of a constituency that had about 30,000 registered voters but the Member of Parliament, who is here with us, was elected by less than 6,000 votes. We are legislating for posterity. People like me have been here for long but I will not be here long after this. Maybe one more term, and that is about it. We will go. We do not want to get into a situation which we have a litigation nation. My fear is that you will finish an election, and the next thing you know is people are collecting signatures. It will not be very difficult because signatures will be collected even without the voters signing.

Eighty per cent of the ladies, men and folk in my constituency are illiterate. With this method of collecting signatures, somebody can falsify that information in one way or the other. We will have a litigation nation with activism throughout. That is basically where the problem is. The President, for example, must be in office at least for two-and-a-half years. Only after that can you try. At that time, we proposed that when you go into office, you will be given a grace period for you to prove yourself. I do not know whether it was carried or not. If the constituents are not very happy with you, only then can they recall you. As it is, you can be recalled six months after you have been elected to Parliament. Courts are not there to legislate. Can I just finish?

Yes.

I am not doing it out of fear. I have received more votes than anyone in this constituency has throughout history, including during my previous tenure. I am still going to get more votes this time, but we have a significant difference to address. Consider the Kisii, for example; they are a very clannish society. In this case, you may have 120,000 votes, yet the winner may only secure 13,000 or

Mover, I believe it is a good idea to stipulate the cut-off period for when a person should be recalled. That is a good suggestion.

Hon. Chairlady, let us take advantage of the fact that this is a Senate Bill. Since this is an amendment to the Bill as it came from the Senate, then we will have the Mediation Committee under the Constitution and the Standing Orders to consider it. I want us to reflect on that reality and think of better ways to enhance this provision. When this matter goes to the Mediation Committee, we should aim to come up with an agreeable, conclusive, and comprehensive mediated version that can then pass. I support this amendment and urge Members to approve it as it stands, as we will have the opportunity to refine it later. We need to think deeply and constitute our team to join the Mediation Committee for an agreed version.

At one level, I believe we should not make it difficult for the people of Kenya to recall their elected representatives. However, on another level, we must also make it very difficult so that we alert the electorate so they make conscious decisions during elections, rather than acting on extraneous considerations. I support the amendment in its current form. If there are improvements suggested, including guidance from the Chairlady, let us use the time between now and when the Bill is before the Mediation Committee to enhance it, but for now, let us pass it as it is.

Hon. Members, just to clarify what was previously there, when it came from the Senate, the grounds for recalling a Member included misconduct likely to bring hatred, ridicule, contempt, or disrepute to the Office, and persistent desertion of the electorate without reasonable cause. Can you see how subjective this was? It is quite dangerous because what does "desertion" mean? What does "bringing contempt and disrepute" mean? These terms are not specific issues. We have amended this. Now, the contention lies in the criteria for recall and the number of votes in the election.

Additionally, another contentious point is: at what point do they qualify for recall? A recall after six months does not allow sufficient time to establish the grounds. Thus, it should ideally be after two years or two-and-a-half years. With this in mind, Members, our debate can centre on those aspects.

Yes, Hon. (Dr) Oundo.

Hon. Chairlady, we will have another bite at this, as Hon. Kaluma indicated but we must reflect clearly. It seems that after the recall process has been completed, one will be subjected to an election, which essentially mirrors any other by-election. In any election, there is a simple principle, as Hon. Farah Maalim has articulated: the winner is the one who crosses the line first. This is a matter we need to reflect on. Hon. Kaluma, if you happen to be in the Mediation Committee, this is something we must examine closely and clarify. Are we introducing additional provisions and requirements for elections as a Member of Parliament, whether for the main election or a by-election? After the recall process is successful, we will be subjected to a by-election. If that happens, does a by- election have any threshold other than a simple majority? If we introduce another tier of one- third in the counties, wards, and the rest, it will end up like a by-election and the rules are simple and straightforward. That is a debate we must review.

Hon. Oundo, you are mistaken. The proposed amendment proposes that for one to be recalled they will need one-third of the registered voters in every ward. If one is successfully recalled, they then proceed to a by-election which is decided by a simple majority. So, you have it wrong.

Yes, that is why I need it to be that clear to Kenyans.

I have made that clear.

Kenyans need to understand this clearly because they might imagine that once they have collected the document…

What you are debating is moot. It is not relevant. It is a simple majority.

Yes, I just wanted to bring it to the attention of Kenyans. At this particular stage, it is not the end of the process. There will be a further by-election…

Let us make progress.

One can, therefore, appreciate that if they initiate the process they are fully aware of how costly, time-consuming and onerous it is.

Hon. Oundo, I have clarified it for you, but now you are repeating it.

Thank you, Hon. Chairlady. (Question, that the new clause be read a Second Time, proposed) (Question, that the new clause be read a Second Time, put and agreed to) (Question, that the new clause be added to the Bill, put and agreed to)

Mover.

Hon. Chairlady, I beg to move that the Committee do report to the House its consideration of the Election

(Amendment)

(No. 2)

Bill

(Senate Bill No. 29 of 2024),

and approval thereof with amendments.

(Question proposed)

(Question put and agreed to)

Hon. Chairlady.

Hon. Speaker, I beg to report that the Committee of the whole House has considered the Election (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill (Senate Bill No. 29 of 2024) and approved the same with amendments.

Mover

Hon. Speaker, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Committee in the said report. I request Hon. Junet Mohamed to second the motion for agreement with the report of the Committee of the whole House.

Hon. Junet.

Hon. Speaker, I second.

Thank you. (Question proposed) (Question put and agreed to)

Mover.