• Bill contemplated a separate law for a specific referendum to specify the wording of the referendum question.
• However, the JLAC committee – under the new leadership of Kangema MP Muturi Kigano and Rarieda MP Otiende Amollo as deputy chairperson, has opposed the move.
Image: REUTERS
Deputy President William Ruto’s allies have suffered a major blow in their push for alternative questions or options in the BBI referendum.
Through the Referendum Bill (No2), 2020, they sought to provide for other options beyond the referendum question, which requires a ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ answer.
The Bill, sponsored by Baringo South MP William Cheptumo – then as chair of the Justice and Legal Affairs Committee (JLAC), was hailed as a check card to the President Uhuru Kenyatta and ODM leader Raila Odinga-led process.
His bid, which followed after the Constitution Implementation Oversight Committee published a bill on the same, was that a referendum could be initiated through an Act of Parliament.
In this regard, where more than one draft bill was to be submitted to the people for a vote, each of the bills was to constitute an option with a separate symbol and answer.
It contemplated a separate law for a specific referendum to specify the wording of the question.
However, the JLAC committee – under the new leadership of Kangema MP Muturi Kigano and Rarieda MP Otiende Amollo as deputy chairperson, has opposed the move.
The committee sought to delete the provisions, which had the potential to bring competing proposals from other players.
JLAC has sought the deletion of the phrase ‘or option’ wherever it appears in the bill.
“The committee was of the view that the commission (IEBC) should not provide voters with other options than approving or rejecting the referendum question,” JLAC said in its report due for plenary discussion in Parliament.
The country may hold a referendum next year to implement certain recommendations by the BBI task force, among them an expanded Executive structure.
The BBI has further proposed a change in the structure of Parliament, increment of revenue to counties, abolition of the National Police Service Commission, creation of a youth commission, among others.
JLAC in its report to the House said that providing other options may complicate the referendum voting process.
The team also deleted provisions for another referendum under the bill in respect of county governments or one conducted on the basis of an Act of Parliament.
Cheptumo sought to provide for the conduct of a referendum through an Act of Parliament specifying the nature and purpose, the question, eligible voters and use of public funds.
“The Bill should be restricted to provide for the referenda contemplated under the Constitution,” the committee said.
MPs have equally rejected the initial proposal for one national referendum committee and one in every constituency.
Cheptumo sought to provide that where there is more than one referendum question, the persons campaigning around it were to form one national committee.
The groups were to be registered by the IEBC.
But JLAC says there is no need to limit the number of committees which may be formed to support or oppose the referendum question.
It said the requirement for persons supporting or opposing the referendum question to form one committee is impractical to implement.
“People may be supporting or opposing the referendum question for different reasons. The committee resolved that the clause be deleted,” the report reads.
Also deleted is the proposal for registration of the committees with JLAC citing the short lifespan of the said groups.
JLAC has also stopped the bid for use of state resources to run referendum committees.
“Under no circumstances should public money be used to support or oppose a referendum question,” the committee said.
JLAC has also recommended for deletion, provisions guiding the decision in the event there are two competing options.