 Let me come to you Julius, now when, let's talk about the judiciary because now we need to also not fail to address the legal issues that were also highlighted in the report. Deputy president will never say this and I quote, on the matter of the judiciary allow me to say that there is a huge space to have an improvement on the proposal that has been made. Having an ombudsman appointed by the executive into the judiciary is a derogation from the independence of the institution. Do you agree with that? Well, not absolutely. I agree to an extent that questions of independence of the judiciary will arise when you have an ombudsman appointed by the executive. Coming from a lawyer does it affect you? The issue is the question is, what is the role of the ombudsman? Ombudsman is now what I would call the prefect. Somebody that Araya would go and report to when they have problems emanating from the judiciary. If they have a problem with a particular court, they have a problem with a particular judge, they have a problem following a particular case, where do they go to? They go to the ombudsman. Now, if this ombudsman is appointed by the judicial service commission and he is supposed to be like a watchdog against the judicial service commission and its appointee is the judge and the magistrate, how will you report to him if he is appointed by the same institution that you are complaining against? Then there is no independence. How do you report to him? There will be conflict of interest if the ombudsman is appointed by the judicial service commission and then Araya wants to report against the judicial service commission to the ombudsman. How will he now watch over the person who appointed him? There is a question, it's a catch-22. If it's appointed by the executive, there is a problem if it's not appointed by the other side. But it's a conversation that I think is healthy to have. It puts a question about the independence of the judiciary. I agree with Wakili, but look at the role of that amendment in Article 172. Now, the judiciary ombudsman has got three specific roles. But most importantly is to encourage transparency. Remember this is a judiciary that has been accused of bribery, has been accused of corruption, so many things. And therefore there must be another angle of looking at that accusation and sorting it out. But again, look at the JSE. These are also members of JSE. So for me, the judiciary ombudsman does not do the discipline. They don't do that. They are just perfect. They are doing the investigation. Then they fought with JSE. JSE does the discipline and even management. I want to believe, as we are talking about judiciary, if you look at the substantive amendments in the judiciary, look at the amendment in appointing the court of appeal president. Given the time limit of five years, look at the experience that they need to be appointed as chief justice 20 years now, not 15. Look at the appointment for the judges in the Supreme Court. Now 15 years, not 10. It means you are taking efficiency, suitability and competency into the judiciary. You are actually strengthening judiciary. And that is a question. Is the judiciary going to be independent? Let's take a look at what Honorable Musala Mudavadi said about this. The judiciary is independent. There is a very good provision recommending the appointment of the ombudsman to handle the issues of the judiciary. I think that is good. However, I strongly believe that in order to enhance the independence of the judiciary, there is that last part. In order to enhance the independence of the judiciary, he was saying that that part needs to be looked into. You are an advocate coming from you. What do you think needs to be done? Because we said the BBI is a report that needs to be looked into. There are some issues that can be corrected here and there. Is this one issue? What needs to be done to the judiciary to be independent, so to speak, is to give them what we call financial independence. That is actually what will answer the query we are talking about, not even to have to do with the ombudsman. Because the problem is that the judiciary still has to go back every time to the executive and parliament to give them money whenever they need money to do a project. That is why I remember the DP yesterday talking about and he was right that there are about 5 counties that don't have high courts to date which is contrary to the constitution. There are about more than 100 constituencies that don't have a court at all. The problem is the Judiciary and Judicial Service Commission really wants to have courts everywhere so that there is access to justice. So for them to do, they have to go back to the executive to give them money. Now if the executive does not give them money, then the raya will suffer because the raya will not have access to justice and then independence of the judiciary will be stifled. You've mentioned money which makes me want to ask this. Hon. Mudavadi said this. The document has very good provisions and he said that the strength of the Senate needs to be looked at again. The articles that have when touched tend to downgrade the role of the Senate when it comes to allocation of resources to the counties. It requires a review. Does that require a review? I remember even the deputy president himself mentioned about this and the deputy said that it would be ironical to release more funds to them when the Senate has been downgraded because the BBI proposes to increase allocation of funds to the counties from the current 15 to 35. Aguko, that statement is a lie. In fact, article 98, the amendment is only to the extent that it is now introducing the 50-50 in terms of gender ensuring that elusive gender principle is achieved in the bicameral house of Senate. But in terms of their work as participants of lawmaking as the people who protect the counties, it is still there. But look, the women of this country, why is it that we don't want to give them an opportunity to make decisions of the amount of money that is going to the counties because the Senate protects the interests of the counties and they also participate in the equitable share among the counties. That is guided by article 203 that gives the criteria. It is not guided by what the Senate says. So it is not a downgrade? No, it is not a downgrade. What they would have done, what in our view as a party that we think can be made better to make it an upper house with veto force so that they can check the excess of a lower house if they do or they make laws that are injurious. That's it. Okay, let me hear your comments on this. Thank you. Did you know that under the current article 123 of the constitution there are two types of senators. They are elected senators and then they are the non-elected senators. The nominated? Yes. Now in terms of decision making in Senate there are decisions that the non-elected senators don't take. The speaker is given the mandate to declare that a particular decision affects counties and then a particular decision does not affect counties. Now a decision that does not affect counties then everybody will vote. A decision that affects counties only the elected senators will vote. I remember just recently when there was a still meet in terms of sharing of revenue the senators that are nominated did not participate. They were being excluded. Even if there was a vote to be taken they are not allowed to vote. And do you know who they are? They are women. Because majority of the nominated senators I think they are almost 17 or 18 who are women. So that basically means that women were excluded from taking decisions that are discriminative. Now the current amendment proposes to have two senators from each county one man, one woman. So that there will be no discrimination as to whether a particular matter affects counties or not. Is there any downgrade when it comes to the Senate looking into county allocations? No, none at all. Let's take a look at the tweets. The hashtag is the stand KE. We have Unis saying I need an honest answer to this if there is one. How would we get into BBI assuming it will pass with ethnicity mindset and still say there will be national unity? I'm sure parties will stick work will still work with ethnic numbers to form coalitions. That is why I said it is work in progress. That is why we are having this conversation so that people are ready for those who cannot read are ready for this document. Those who are able to read read for themselves so that they are able to engage in this discourse from a point of information. So that we are not misled by whoever is talking because truly speaking people have already taken the conversation is already almost taking ethnic balkanization. Let's go to this is Mata Karua. BBI is not a national conversation but a conversation of two friends and their allies to the exclusion of others a breaking bridges initiative. I saw Mata Karua presenting before the BBI she gave her views it is ridiculous for her not to defend the views that she presented before this task force and therefore that is very wanting from her as a leader. Number two, national conversations means a conversation that belongs and involves all Kenyans. I remember this task force going to 47 counties and even when corona came they managed to meet the rift valet team that they had not met before corona and therefore it is a lie to say that it is between two friends but even as we say that the two friends that she is talking about she is talking about I want to believe they are Rayl Odinga and Uru Kenyatta these are gentlemen who went for a contest and competed one of them swore himself in one of them was swore by the instruments of power and therefore the conflict that it was creating the people who lost their jobs baby Pendo lost her life their parents were there you cannot say that it is not a national conversation while their people lost their lives you cannot say that it is not a national conversation while their people lost businesses. Let's take a look at what Ahamed Nasir said his excellency Uru must give Kenyans 18 months to digest and internalize the BBI report he receives it tomorrow at 9 am it's a complex and very difficult document for Wanjiku to understand and appreciate that was on Sunday we have David D said the constitution provides for two processes of Ahmed Med Popular initiative and legislative there is no provision for an executive initiative the BBI task force is an executive body gazetted and financed by presidential let me just attack that immediately I'm sure David D is watching let me tell you there is a lie it is true the constitution gives two routes to amend popular initiative that goes through the county like we did in Puzan they go under parliamentary now he is bringing in the aspect of executive initiative which is nonexistent to ridicule the process that it is an executive project it is not and article 257 and Wakiliya will confirm that give the provision for popular initiative says any promoter a promoter can be executive can be Wakili can be Okango can be you shall meet the threshold of one million signatures and submit with a bill or general propositions and therefore it does not exclude executive as a promoter so what is your take on that if I may add what does the word popular initiative means the word popular must must be read from the context of the population correct it has to originate from the population but an idea can only be conceived by an individual at the time ok once conceived the conceiver of the idea can sell it to the populace once the populace adopted and embrace it it becomes popular initiative alright now so many to it so many comments you cannot be able to sample them up just one by David WBBI is the solution to Kenya as a country there won't be any fight against again after every election no blood will be shed whatever correction to be done could be necessary ok let me just sample just one more comment this is Odongo he is saying Aguko I am watching you enjoying the show we have one more tweet by this is Anitwanani Evans he is saying watching from Zimaman Kazi Ikoshwari Sana the willbarrow the reason why willbarrow is being used doesn't mean we don't want to embrace modernity we are only using willbarrow for substance use that is what Odongo is saying alright so our time is not on our side but I would like to give you each just 30 seconds to give us a final remark about the BBI report and how moving forward the country or the nation should be like let me start with you Julius thank you Ram this BBI report is a good report I started by saying so and I would add Kenyans to read it let's not allow ourselves to be read for and let's not also allow ourselves to say that since Juma has read it and Juma has told me what it contains so I believe him if we are able to read it this document is good it may not be perfect but surely I tell you it will answer most of our problems and that's where our focus should be it is time for national conversation and the report is out Jisome and once you Jisome make a decision and remember this report is not an individual's report it is a report that culminates from the people of Kenya we have so many recommendations that will benefit all of us alright read it alright thank you very much for your comments that was Frederico Kang or Tadua Alliance Secretary General just Juma a constitutional lawyer gentlemen it has been a pleasure thank you now remember we are live we are that's on our website www.y254.co.ke keep tweeting and keep texting the hashtag is the stand keatramaguko.net Y254 channel that brings us to the end of this evening conversation it was all about understanding the BBI remember it is your civic duty to read and understand it my name is Ramawuko God bless you have a good night this is a stand see you again next week on Tuesday at 8pm