The Bill cannot and should not be amended because of the route it has used to Parliament.
We have to ask ourselves the rationale of having a popular initiative and a parliamentary initiative.
Kenyans chose to have two distinct ways of amending the Constitution to give themselves a direct route of infusing changes in the Constitution without the intervention of the political class.
That is why there is the requirement and also the logic – when you look at Article 257 – which requires that even beyond the general suggestion of amending the Constitution, when the popular initiative route is used, it starts with the delivery of a Bill to the IEBC accompanied by at least a million signatures of registered voters.
We must ask ourselves why a Bill? A Bill spells out the issues in a very specific way and it correctly captures what those who want the Constitution amended.
Once the proponents have looked into a proposal, and they have the support and authority and have taken it to the IEBC in the form of the Bill, this means it is very specific.
If in the course of the journey other people can make changes to the Bill, then the logic of a popular initiative is lost.
The essence of the Bill is that the proponents want the Constitution amended in certain specifics. Logically, it would be flawed if you say that Parliament or any other person can amend that document within that journey.
What the legislative body gathers from public participation can be used to gauge whether the Bill before them, which they are being asked to endorse or not, meets the veracity of the public.
If they go through public participation and discover that the Bill requires so many changes, it is a barometer that tells them the Bill is not sufficient as is so return to sender by voting ‘No’.
If they feel the public is in agreement with the Bill from the views presented during public participation, then they give their support by voting the Bill to the next stage. BY THE STAR