HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, POST, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept
{
"count": 1608389,
"next": "http://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/?format=api&page=153290",
"previous": "http://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/?format=api&page=153288",
"results": [
{
"id": 1551082,
"url": "http://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1551082/?format=api",
"text_counter": 404,
"type": "speech",
"speaker_name": "Ainabkoi, UDA",
"speaker_title": "Hon. Samwel Chepkonga",
"speaker": null,
"content": "It sought to give effect to Articles 109, 110, 113, 114 and 118 of the Constitution to foster the bicameral relations by prescribing procedures for ensuring seamless consideration of the legislative business of both Houses of Parliament. It sought to outline a framework to implement Article 110 of the Constitution which has been a basis of disputes between the two Houses. As you know, this particular Article has been of serious and tremendous contention between the two Houses as to the manner in which we should consider various Bills, in light of Article 110(3) of the Constitution. Hon. Temporary Speaker, secondly, the Bill that was sent to the Senate proposed parameters for the Speakers of Parliament to consider when determining whether a Bill concerns county governments. Thirdly, it sought to encourage collaboration by permitting co- sponsorship of Bills between Members of the National Assembly and the Senate. It also outlined procedures for joint proceedings, mediation and joint committees of Parliament. As you are aware, there has not been a procedure in the Standing Orders of both Houses, the National Assembly and the Senate, that allows Members of both Houses to co-sponsor a Bill. For instance, we were seeking to co-sponsor the constitutional amendment on the entrenchment of various funds in the Constitution, but the Standing Orders do not allow Members of the other House to co-sponsor that Bill with us. Fourthly, the Bill was passed and sent to the other House for joint public participation. As you are aware, the various committees of this House conduct public participation on a raft of Bills. The Senate also considers Bills that touch on the counties that are sent there. They restart the process of Article 118 of the Constitution which wastes public funds. This Bill seeks to introduce a procedure for ensuring that we do not duplicate public participation in an effort to pass a number of Bills. Finally, the Bill also requires both Houses to adopt alternative dispute resolution. There has been a rush by the other House, in many instances, to seek the courts’ interpretation on a number of issues that this House has passed. This House has never taken the Senate to the Judiciary or through a judicial process. Instead of sitting down and agreeing on our issues, the Senate rushes to the courts of law to seek protection from the Judiciary, which is another arm The electronic version of the Official Hansard Report is for information purposesonly. A certified version of this Report can be obtained from the Hansard Editor."
},
{
"id": 1551083,
"url": "http://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1551083/?format=api",
"text_counter": 405,
"type": "speech",
"speaker_name": "Ainabkoi, UDA",
"speaker_title": "Hon. Samwel Chepkonga",
"speaker": null,
"content": "of Government. We should resolve our issues that are of interest to Kenyans. This is completely out of order. This Bill seeks to resolve these issues. The Departmental Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs considered the Senate amendments, and proposed to reject them. I will request Hon. Murugara to second this particular Motion. He will give the reasons for proposing the rejection. I have gone through the Report which is very succinct and cogent in the reasons they have provided for the rejection of the proposed amendments to the Bill that was approved by the House. I am in complete agreement with that Report. So that we do not spend a lot of time, I will truncate to what I consider to be very important. There is a recent decision by the Supreme Court, arising from an appeal from the Court of Appeal by the Senate. The Senate had sued the National Assembly on a number of Bills that had been passed by this House, without referring them to the Senate. We considered that they were Bills that had nothing to do with the county governments. They took us to the High Court in the first instance which invalidated 23 Acts of Parliament that had been passed by this House. The Court of Appeal similarly attempted to invalidate those legislations. However, when the appeal was taken to the Supreme Court, in its decision and finding, it found that 21 Acts of Parliament had nothing to do with the Senate, including the National Government Constituencies Development Fund (NG-CDF). They found these particular legislations to be within the remit of the National Assembly. The various orders that were sought by the Senate were all summarily dismissed. For the avoidance of doubt, the orders that were sought by the Senate were dismissed by the Supreme Court. The Senate sought that a mandatory injunction be issued against the National Assembly from considering Bills that touch on counties and have not been referred to the National Assembly. Secondly, they sought to invalidate 21 Acts of Parliament to be unconstitutional. The Supreme Court found that 21 Acts of Parliament were indeed constitutional. They rejected that particular request by the Senate. The Supreme Court also found that the Senate had no role in the origination, consideration and enactment of money Bills as per Article 110 of the Constitution. They also found that the National Assembly has the exclusive role in the origination, consideration and enactment of money Bills. Finally, this was the order of the Supreme Court: the constitutionality of the Parliamentary Service Act was not an issue and could not, therefore, be considered by the Supreme Court. That was left for determination by the High Court. The findings of the Supreme Court, which I have just mentioned, are, therefore, critical to the consideration of the Senate amendments that have been proposed to this House. They run afoul and are completely in contravention of the finding and decision of the Supreme Court. I wish to laud the Supreme Court for the stoic decision and guidance that they have given in finality, and setting the record straight in ensuring that there is harmonious relationship between the two Houses. In conclusion, recently, we passed a request from the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) selection panel where they had sought for an extension of 14 days. This House passed that request. When it was taken to the Senate, they questioned the manner in which that proposal was sent to this House. In fact, they said that the Speaker of this House ought not to have received it, and forwarded it to the House. This request was made to the Speaker in his capacity as the Chairman of the Parliamentary Service Commission. To question the law which both Houses passed is a zero-sum game and argument by the Senate. It seeks to impede the character of the Speaker. In fact, I am seeking to impeach the character of the Speaker. I found it to be completely out of tune by throwing tantrums that are completely unnecessary. In fact, the Mover of that particular request, my very good friend Sen. Khalwale, said he did not even know why he was The electronic version of the Official Hansard Report is for information purposesonly. A certified version of this Report can be obtained from the Hansard Editor."
},
{
"id": 1551084,
"url": "http://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1551084/?format=api",
"text_counter": 406,
"type": "speech",
"speaker_name": "Ainabkoi, UDA",
"speaker_title": "Hon. Samwel Chepkonga",
"speaker": null,
"content": "moving it, yet he moved it. I thought it was a joke of the century that someone moves a request and says that he does not know why he is moving it. And they eventually passed it. Some of the things this Bill seeks to bring to rest are completely contradictory. So, I request this House to completely agree with the proposals of the Departmental Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs and reject the proposed amendments by the Senate. They seek to amend the Constitution through the back door. They seek to amend Articles 109(3), 114 and 110 of the Constitution that give power to this House. We did not propose this Bicameral Relations Bill so that the Senate proposes amendments that will water down the constitutional provisions without amending the Constitution. If they want to amend the Constitution, let them bring the proposed amendment to the Constitution and they must comply with the requirements of amending the Constitution. With those remarks, I beg to move and request Hon. Murugara to second."
},
{
"id": 1551085,
"url": "http://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1551085/?format=api",
"text_counter": 407,
"type": "speech",
"speaker_name": "Hon. Farah Maalim",
"speaker_title": "The Temporary Speaker",
"speaker": {
"id": 16,
"legal_name": "Farah Maalim Mohamed",
"slug": "farah-maalim"
},
"content": " Proceed, Hon. Murugara."
},
{
"id": 1551086,
"url": "http://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1551086/?format=api",
"text_counter": 408,
"type": "speech",
"speaker_name": "Tharaka, UDA",
"speaker_title": "Hon. George Murugara",
"speaker": null,
"content": " Hon. Temporary Speaker, I beg to second this Motion. I advise the House that when the vote is called, we will be rejecting the Motion that the proposed amendments by the Senate should not be considered such that those amendments will actually be lost and the Motion will also be lost. I must start by stating that I have read the judgement of the Supreme Court delivered on 21st March 2025 while we were away on a short recess. Allow me, Hon. Temporary Speaker, to laud the Supreme Court for having resolved a dispute that had dragged for six years between the two Houses of Parliament. This was an excellent piece of work from the Supreme Court and they deserve a pat on the back for having resolved this and having clearly stated what should go to the Senate and what should not go to the Senate. It is unfortunate that for six years, there was a duel in the courts between the National Assembly and the Senate on the interpretation of Article 110(3) of the Constitution which requires the two Houses to resolve any question whether a Bill concerns county governments or not. From this particular decision, it was most bizarre that the interpretation by the Senate was that all Bills have to be taken to the Senate even Bills that have nothing to do and have no single provision concerning county governments. This is what they are trying to do again. We will show with the intended proposed amendments by the Senate that they are actually going on the wrong tangent. This interpretation by the Senate was not only erroneous, but also ignored the existence of Article 109 of the Constitution which provides that Bills that do not concern county governments need not be considered by the Senate, but have to be considered only by this House. Therefore, this judgement is commendable in that it has settled the long dispute of six years and has clearly expressly provided what falls under Article 110(3) of the Constitution that it is only Bills that concern counties that possibly have questions arising to be determined by the two Speakers. Article 96 of the Constitution clearly states the mandate of the Senate, which is to represent and protect the interests of the counties especially in the matters legislation and matters Parliament. The legislative mandate of the Senate is limited to Bills concerning county governments and not all Bills as the Senate has tried to make us believe and was trying to make the courts to believe which was rejected by the courts. There are obvious Bills which must be taken to the Senate including money Bills. What we have in mind includes the Division of Revenue and County Allocation of Revenue Bills. Without saying, those ones go to the Senate. Where a question arises, the two Speakers have to resolve it. The Departmental Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs keenly scrutinised the amendments proposed by the Senate and having carefully looked at them, we call for their rejection. The reason is that the Senate indirectly tries to perpetuate an unconstitutional practise The electronic version of the Official Hansard Report is for information purposesonly. A certified version of this Report can be obtained from the Hansard Editor."
},
{
"id": 1551087,
"url": "http://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1551087/?format=api",
"text_counter": 409,
"type": "speech",
"speaker_name": "Tharaka, UDA",
"speaker_title": "Hon. George Murugara",
"speaker": null,
"content": "and misconceived arguments which they made in court and which were lost. When the drafters of the Constitution came up with what we have, and which we passed in 2010, they had in mind a bicameral Parliament that was to work seamlessly and was to be guided by distinct mandates of each House. This is why it took time to make provisions on what the National Assembly would do and what the Senate would do in turn. We also have the Fourth Schedule where it is clearly defined what which House is supposed to do the functions are clearly demarcated between the national Government and those of county governments. Therefore, I wonder why anyone would ignore these very well thought out constitutional provisions and waste six years in courts battling what should go to the Senate and what should not go to there. Having carefully read the judgement of the Supreme Court and having looked at Paragraph 95, which is in black and white, it now goes unquestioned where the concurrence process should be sought. Having looked at this and the proposed amendments, we are left with no option, but to urge this House to reject them. We oppose this Motion and let everything from the Senate fall by the wayside. We will go for mediation after that and we will demonstrate to the Senate what exactly the Constitution says and what exactly we painstakingly went through when we were coming up with the report on the Bicameral Relations Bill which Hon. Chepkonga had taken pain to draft and urge it through this House to success. As I conclude, let me take the House through what the Senate is proposing. As regards Clause 6, the Senate proposes the following: To delete the entire Clause 6 and substitute therefor the following new clause: Clause 6 (i) says that before a Bill is Read for the First Time in the House originating the Bill, the Speaker of that House shall, pursuant to Article 110(3) of the Constitution, invite the Speaker of the other House to jointly resolve any question as to whether it is a Bill concerning counties and, if it is, whether it is a special or an ordinary Bill. What the Senate is proposing is that before any Bill is read in this House, first and foremost, the two Speakers must burn the midnight oil, spend time and expend national resources to sort out whether a Bill concerns counties or not. It is clear to this House that there are Bills which have nothing to do with counties and the Senate. Therefore, the Senate should not call us to waste our time, resources and energy debating on whether a Bill concerns a county or not. This is a bad proposal which must be rejected. If I had more time, I would have gone through the entire proposed amendments from the Senate on this Bill. None of them qualifies to be considered by this House. With those very many remarks, I beg to second the rejection of the amendments from the Senate, and the rejection of this Motion."
},
{
"id": 1551088,
"url": "http://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1551088/?format=api",
"text_counter": 410,
"type": "scene",
"speaker_name": "",
"speaker_title": "",
"speaker": null,
"content": "(Question proposed)"
},
{
"id": 1551089,
"url": "http://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1551089/?format=api",
"text_counter": 411,
"type": "speech",
"speaker_name": "Hon. Farah Maalim",
"speaker_title": "The Temporary Speaker",
"speaker": {
"id": 16,
"legal_name": "Farah Maalim Mohamed",
"slug": "farah-maalim"
},
"content": " Hon. Pukose."
},
{
"id": 1551090,
"url": "http://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1551090/?format=api",
"text_counter": 412,
"type": "speech",
"speaker_name": "Endebess, UDA",
"speaker_title": "Hon. (Dr) Robert Pukose",
"speaker": null,
"content": " Thank you, Hon. Temporary Speaker. I stand to support the position taken by the Committee on the consideration of the Senate amendments to the Houses of Parliament (Bicameral Relations) Bill (National Assembly Bill No.44 of 2023). I also want to make my contributions on the Supreme Court judgment. Apart from the determination of the issues of application of Article 110(3) of the Constitution and Article 114 of the Constitution on money Bills, the Senate also sought the invalidation of 23 Acts of Parliament which had been enacted by this House, as stated by Hon. Chepkonga. The Senate sought the invalidation of the Acts of Parliament on the ground that they were enacted without the Senate’s participation. They include several Appropriation Acts that have already authorised expenditures of funds for provision of public services to the people of Kenya. The electronic version of the Official Hansard Report is for information purposesonly. A certified version of this Report can be obtained from the Hansard Editor."
},
{
"id": 1551091,
"url": "http://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1551091/?format=api",
"text_counter": 413,
"type": "speech",
"speaker_name": "Endebess, UDA",
"speaker_title": "Hon. (Dr) Robert Pukose",
"speaker": null,
"content": "The Senate also sought to invalidate the National Youth Service Act, the Kenya Coast Guard Act, and several Statute Law (Miscellaneous Amendment) Acts for several years. I am giving these examples to illustrate how far the dispute of the legislative mandate of the Senate had gone. It has reached the extent of throwing the country into a crisis by seeking invalidation of key Acts of Parliament that touch on critical sectors of the country. I am, therefore, pleased to note that the Supreme Court judgment has averted a definite crisis by upholding the constitutionality of the 21 Acts of Parliament although it has taken six years. I hope in the future, the courts will move with speed because justice delayed is justice denied. The Senate amendments as explained by the Chair of the Justice and Legal Affairs Committee (JLAC), Hon. Murugara, do not align with the Supreme Court’s guidance. The proposed amendment of the two Speakers spending time to determine whether a Bill concerns counties or not is something that the drafters of a Bill will indicate. Therefore, spending time to decide whether a Bill concerns counties or not is a waste of time. That is not the direction we should take. The Senate and the National Assembly arguing between themselves wastes time that eats into the expectations of many Kenyans. Ordinarily, the country waits Parliament to enact laws that will give service to the people. Therefore, any delay through arguing to determine whether a Bill should have originated from the Senate or the National Assembly, denies service to the people. With those few remarks, I support the Committee's position and oppose the proposed Senate amendments."
}
]
}