 ...proposo seria kami karateria en repunakikumira kamaa indainye kuhisha kila hivata kutua hewe adanda jeden MāIPC Maryan ...mata m 那i poto tuhокakia ...? kumpetisyon. And I quote, How fair will there be, will it be when there is a league where the referee is appointed by a team and not only a team, but teams, if you persuade me that you will have a fair game, fine. You have heard me, I have heard you. Do you think that is fair? Will we have a middle ground? Does it address a nation when it takes it all? And that was the question. You said that is not true. That is not true. Let me hear it from you. Aguko, I'm a politician and when the DP speaks like that, I know what it means. What does it mean? You know, when you see things that are likely to upset you in a competition as a competitor, then you must raise the red flag. But be that as it may. I don't think that statement is true because IBC composition as it is today requires fixing. However, assuming we are going to get a fresh IBC, the two representatives in parliament who said they will be from two political parties? That is a lie. Are they being appointed by parliament? The two representatives that will take part in appointment of IBC and its commissioners would come from a conglomerate of political parties. We are in an era of collisions and it is possible that the collision that will form government and that that will be in the opposition will only be two. It is possible. And therefore they shall be representing parliament as an institution, not as a political party. And therefore I don't agree with him. And again, look at it this way. I want to go further and maybe just say what Iotrov said but he failed. The reason why that amendment is proposed and if you look at that it touches on the elections act and it's going to go all the way to IBC act because the suitability, competency and capability of the leadership at IBC who these members shall be vetted. The vetting of these members require that you put people who shall guarantee a fair and credible election. Our challenge after every election is a disputed election. Why? Because there are certain individuals that have been believed or have been accused of colluding with the players. So a referee must be checked before the march and that referee must be declared fit to the march. And in this we are talking about the referee being an IBC commission. Now, let me ask you how do you ensure that there is a stake older engagement in appointing the IBC commissioners? It's not only in fact the parliament as an institution is taking very few people. There are others, religious leaders, there are others. So for me, that was a political statement. But you know what? As I said, I'm a politician. I would say the same if I fear or if I feel threatened. These proposals to ensure that we have got IBC that is properly constituted, IBC that is believable, IBC that can do the job are very good for this country because all along after every election, 2007, remember the other commission, ECK, 2013, 2017 all eyes are saying IBC must go. People have gone to court. Why? Because I believe that they have not done the proper job. They have been accusations. What we are saying. So here we are talking about just like the Bible, one leader mentioned the Bible, the report is subject to interpretation. You know we are talking about a legal document, but it is important to explain it to a language that the money can understand. Let me come to you, Julius. Let me weigh in on that one. It is not the first time that this will happen. It happened in 1997 under what we called IPP event. Yes. Now the idea, like my friend has said, is that IBC has always not been trusted for years, whether for good measure or not. Now the idea and to be specific as to what the proposed amendment says, it talks of parliamentary parties. It does not talk of two parties. It talks of to be appointed by parliamentary parties. What that means is that there are parties that are called parliamentary parties and parties that are not. Parliamentary parties basically are parties that have a threshold and a number of they have secured seats in parliament up to a number, particular number. Actually, even this thing we call parliamentary, rather we call political parties, fund. It's not given to every party. It's only given to parliamentary parties. The moment you have formed yourself into a political party and you have secured seats in parliament up to a particular set number, then you qualify to be called a parliamentary party. So in this now, in this case, where is the truth and where is the lie? So in this case the idea is to ensure that your own is in the commission. So that once the results are released, you will not say that IBC was compromised because your own was there. You participated in recruiting. And again maybe to add what he's saying, you see the parliamentary parties, the reason why they are called parliamentary parties is because they have secured seats in parliament. Now, I don't think that only two parties will secure seats in parliament. There will be so many and therefore I go back to what I started by saying in presenting those two members in the vetting committee they shall come from a conglomerate of political parties and that's why coalition building and even if it is coalition it will be concesa that we as the opposition we as government these are the two members that we are presenting. Remember it is strengthening the institution of IBC. Parliament already has got the opposition leader and the government. And therefore it follows that the two factions will be presenting their candidates who are going to vet. It is coming from the strengthening of parliament to strengthening institution that are partners with parliament.