State House Spokesperson Manoah Esipisu, addresses journalists, October 1, 2017. [Photo|PSCU]
State House Spokesperson Manoah Esipisu, held his weekly media briefing on Sunday, where he addressed the press.
He had a question and answer session, after the briefing, where he responded to questions from journalists.
Esipisu seemed angered, after one of the journalists asked him about the proposed electoral laws amendments by the Jubilee government, which is already in Parliament.
The question asked in Kiswahili, said most Kenyans were not happy wiyh the laws, somenthing that seemed to dissapoint Esipisu. Below is the question, and Esipisu's response.
Question: "Nnitauliza kwa Kiswahili kuhusu hizi sheria. Mswaada wa sheria za uchaguzi ambazo zimewasilishwa na wabunge wa Jubilee, wengi wamesema ya kwamba ni sheria zinaturudisha enzi za kikoloni. Sijuia maoni yako ni nini?"
Esipisu's Answer: "On the amendments, let me say them in English first, might help my head translate them faster.
Obviously if you are mentioning wengi, sijui hao wengi umetoa wapi, kwa sababu kwani umefanya research wapi, survey wapi ili useme wengi wa watu wanahofia sheria hizo zitakuwa sheria ambazo zinaturudisha nyuma. Kama hujafanya hiyo research tafadhali tuheshimiane, hakuna kitu cha wengi hapo. Kuna wachache ambao wamesema hivyo mimi pia nimewasikia lakini hakuna ukweli wowote kwa jambo hilo.
What I want to say is this, the Supreme Court clearly said that Parliament needed to do something about clarifying the laws. Parliament needed to clarify the laws. It didn’t say politicians at political rallies needed to clarify the laws. It didn’t say we, journalists, needed to seat at a pub and clarify the laws. It didn’t say high schools students should debate and clarify the laws. The Supreme Court said Parliament needs to clarify the laws.
Parliament is now clarifying the laws and we cannot pretend that the Supreme Court didn’t say these things, it did and as the Deputy President was saying in Kakamega yesterday and his sound bite was good so I can repeat it here.
He asked these leaders in Kakamega, if a chicken thief can be jailed for that crime, you are jailed for stealing chicken, why shouldn’t you be jailed as a returning officer for refusing to sign the form or omitting to sign the form or forgetting to sign the form, in which you then consciously, because you must that it has the consequence, you negate the will of the people.
People have voted, you have not signed the forms, you have pretty much negated their vote. I think you have got to look at that and think, a presiding officer who doesn’t sign, a returning officer who doesn’t sign, they need to be punished for that it is a crime, it is a crime against all us Kenyans.
Secondly, if you have a rule that says only the chairman can declare and well for some reasons the chairman is not available so who should declare? Those are the things that the Supreme Court asked for, and I think these amendments clarify. So, if there is the vice chair and the chair is not available the vice chair takes that role.
So, if you tell me these things return us to the dark ages, maybe those dark ages some of us were never in them so we wouldn’t know what dark ages mean. But I can assure you that I have been around as a journalist like yourself since the 1990’s. We have made a lot of progress and I don’t think that we have the potential, just the mere potential, of returning to the dark ages no! What the Supreme Court asked for is clarity.
What Parliament is going to give the Supreme Court is clarity so that never again in our country can an election, leave alone that of the president, be nullified without checking actually what was the will of the Kenyan people."