sasa Captain amesema


Statement by Rt. Hon. Raila Amolo Odinga, Prime Minister of Kenya

RELEASED AT NAIROBI, THIS WEDNESDAY APRIL 7TH, 2010


On Thursday, April 1st, 2010, Parliament unanimously passed the Proposed Constitution without any amendments. This was historic in view of the 150 proposed amendments that MPs had attempted to introduce but which failed to attract the number required for such amendments to be approved by the House.

After the KIA retreat, the only place where amendments could legally be made was Parliament. But the MPs were unable to reach consensus and vote for any of the 150 proposed amendments. Parliament’s unanimous adoption of the Draft Constitution was both a loud endorsement and reflective of the popular demand by the people of Kenya that MPs should not mutilate what the people have now adopted as their Constitution.

As the Honourable Speaker Kenneth Marende repeatedly reminded MPs during that historic debate, the law is crystal clear: once adopted, the Draft Constitution MUST be handed over to the Attorney General for publication without any amendments or alterations and onward remittal to the people to ratify at a referendum. I understand that the Speaker is delivering the Draft Constitution to the Attorney General today.

Once Parliament adopts the Draft Constitution – even by a simple majority – it must be subjected to a referendum. This is because the Constitution belongs to the people of Kenya; not to a few individuals or leaders.

Kenyans are aware that no Constitution is perfect, especially a product of protracted and intense negotiations like ours. Imperfect as it maybe, the Draft Constitution is still qualitatively much better than the current Constitution. With its aspirational preamble; progressive bill of rights; reformative chapter on land; transformative devolution and representative clauses; and inspirational transitional clauses; the Draft Constitution will entrench equity, equality, rights and freedoms hitherto dreamed of but unrealized by the people.

Whatever deserving amendments we might desire can be made later like the Americans, South Africans and Canadians have done over the years. Kenyans must accept that constitution-making is a process; not an event.

Inevitably, some people will find something with which they are happy and something with which they are disappointed. The delicate nature of constitution-making entails that not everyone will be completely satisfied with the Draft Constitution. We can never have a Draft that will please every single one of the 40 million plus Kenyans. Therefore, opening up the document at this late stage for renegotiation will not bring consensus; it will fester confusion and recrimination. Indeed, it might even undermine the entire process.

The general wish of the overwhelming majority of Kenyans is reflected in the Draft Constitution. No one should pretend that they are the only ones who can gauge and determine what the country needs. None of us can hold the country at ransom by threatening to shoot down the Draft at the referendum.

In view of the foregoing, I wish to state clearly and unequivocally that I support the Draft Constitution the way it is and will strongly campaign for its ratification by Kenyans.

I appeal specifically to political, religious and civil society leaders to set aside all disagreements they might have over the Draft Constitution and forge a common front. This is not about political supremacy or the 2012 presidential campaign; it is about the interests of all Kenyans.

It is also not about political parties, ethnic groups, religious affiliations or sectarian interests; it is about all of us, together. Each one of us must be ready to give up something for the general good. There is no place for secret deals, conspiracies or mutilations!

If we fail to rise up to the occasion, we might not get another chance to bring a new constitutional dispensation to this country. And we cannot and must not do that!

The Constitution of Kenya Review Act (2008) set out a clear roadmap for this process. Everyone knows that the stage we have reached does not allow any more drafting or amendments. And since we must adhere to the rule of law and constitutionalism in this country, it is imperative that we adhere strictly to the legal roadmap as set out in the Review Act.

Let me be clear: Raila Odinga will not support or be party to an attempt by anyone or any group of people out to derail or mutilate the Draft Constitution!

Finally, I urge all Kenyans to support the Draft Constitution at the referendum and vote a resounding YES.
Thank you. God bless Kenya.

The idea of not having to come to Nairobi to search for jobs is encouraging...when devolution comes to effect...may be and I say may be the many degrees going to waste in form of unemployment in the cities will now be worth the sweat....@Niando's fear of regional governments leading to chaos will be unreal....



Women will be more empowered ....senate and parliament will check the president hence @Niando's fear of imperial president should subside...

This Draft is good ....BUT the Leaders will have to follow the law and the Led will have to STOP supporting corrupt Leaders for it to bear any fruits .

Abortion by choice is not and will not be allowed in the constitution now or in future.....

Let Kadhis courts be ....God gave man Choice ....some chose good others chose evil .... but HE ,the Mighty one ,is the judge ...Let not man a Judge

@Intell

I think it expressly prohibits any members of the uniformed/disciplined forces to engage in such.. i believe the beef here was on the terms uniformed or was it disciplined?
somebody was arguing uniformed could include G4S, thus the draft needed to expressly refer to the armed forces..and list them...

im not sure.. somebody shed some light on that one

@All this is a perfect example of sacerdotal tyranny. The Church is being both petty and contemptible. It failed the country during the last election, and the previous referendum.
I think that we should ignore them period. They have no vision for this country.

'Despite clause (1) and (2), a provision in legislation may limit the..'

that is precisely the point!

For Article 36 above to apply for the armed forces, legislation has to be in place specifically and expressly barring the said freedom of expression for the uniformed forces. The draft as-is merely PROVIDES for such legislation meaning in the absence of such legislation then the whole of article 24 - and the freedom to association therein - applies. That means as soon as it is law the armed forces can legally go on strike (read mutiny).

I WILL VOTE NO....EVEN IF MY BISHOP TELLS ME TO VOTE YES...IF I VOTE YES I LET HUMAN BEINGS HAVE THE POWER TO DECIDE WHETHER TO KILL OR NOT..IF I VOTE YES I ALLOW ANOTHER RELIGION TO BE MORE SUPERIOR THAN MY FAITH...I WANT ALL RELIGIONS TO BE EQUAL.....I VOTE NO...

Intelligentsia


Fear not for there shall be a

196 Parliamentary Select Committee4. There shall be a select committee to be known as the Constitutional
Implementation Oversight Committee which shall be responsible for overseeing
the implementation of this Constitution and which, among other things –
(a) shall receive regular reports from the Commission on the
Implementation of the Constitution on the implementation of this
Constitution including reports concerning—
(i) the preparation of the legislation required by this
Constitution and any challenges in that regard;
(ii) the process of establishing the new commissions;
........
........

(v) any impediments to the process of implementing this
Constitution;

My approach to this draft constitution is as follows;
1. I will read it and then decide whether to vote yes or no. I hear it is a big document, very big document. That sets me thinking that not many people will read it. It therefore means they will vote on what they have picked on the document from others. If 'others' can influence the outcome of the referendum, then I should try to influence others like 'others' on the position I take on the document. Why is the document so long, I keep asking. Maybe I will be surprised when I read it but my suspicion is that the COE- I mean the 'expert' drafters- wanted to provide for everything yet that defeats the purpose of constitution making which is to provide for the fundamental law.

2. While I read and after I read, I will ask whether (a) the effort to make the constitution (b) the content of the constitution is worth adopting it. On the first issue, it matters not how long and how much in money it has taken if the second issue is not satisfactory. There goes my low regard for the argument that it has taken us 20 years and so many billions to get us where we are. I will, however, be looking out for the influence of 'effort' on 'content' with a warning that constitution making must be based on the 'need' rather than the 'effort' because 'effort' may be driven by very selfish sectarian interest. The 'need' must also be interrogated to differentiate between 'process need' and 'content need'- I have in mind one of the touted underlying 'need' for new constitution, being that it is part of Agenda 4 reforms and that without the new constitution we will witness violence like the latest PEV, to the extent that people are ready for a new constitution whatever its contents. My suspicion is that 'process need' may have given way to 'content need' especially because the political players must deliver Agenda 4 and do not want to look like they are stalling the process of the constitution so that, however much reservation they have with the contents of the draft, they are still asking people to vote for it. I am yet to read the draft but seriously, if devolution and parliamentary system was such a big issue for the 'Orange' in 2005, can you see the sacrifice they must have made to accept a diluted devolved system and a pure presidential system?

3. Tied to the above is the issue, what will happen if Kenyans return the NO vote? Does it create fear or joy? Is there justification for fearing that the country will fall apart? My thinking is that if it does, we have a bigger problem than the need for a new constitution and would put to question what has kept us together for so long, seeing that a 'paper constitution' has never been a necessity in some countries like the UK . My opinion, however, is that we would still be here trying to figure out how to steel our beloved country and ourselves as individuals to prosperity because that is the essence of nationhood.

@BREWER, brilliant!

I am not a Christian but even so, with Kadhis courts NOOOOOOOOOO!!!