Entry Instance

HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept

{
    "id": 1013188,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1013188/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 134,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Garissa Township, JP",
    "speaker_title": "Hon. Aden Duale",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 15,
        "legal_name": "Aden Bare Duale",
        "slug": "aden-duale"
    },
    "content": "So, to what extent can this House legislate on matters that are purely procedural through an Act of Parliament? That is what we are doing. That is what this Bill is doing. I first wanted to oppose it last week, but later after reading it, I have realised it is very unconstitutional. We cannot legislate our own procedures. Public participation is a function of this House. Is this not a negation of Article 124 of the Constitution? To give an example, can we pass a Bill on how to elect the Speaker, the Deputy Speaker, or the Chairpersons of Committees? These are matters that are contained in our Standing Orders. The Judiciary for instance, provides such matters as fair hearing. On court proceedings, how they should be open to the public is within its internal procedures, called Civil Procedure Rules. I am sure Hon. Otiende, Hon. Millie and other lawyers in this House know that the Judiciary have their own Civil Procedure Rules. Why do you want to expose the future Houses of Parliament to vagaries of statutes? The Public participation process is a matter that is purely internal that cannot be contained in an Act of Parliament, but only in our own internal rules of procedure, which is the Standing Orders. These are serious constitutional issues that are posed by this Bill, part of which touch on the authority and the privileges of the House. Hon. Speaker, I seek your guidance on how we should proceed forward. In my view, I know that the Bill seeks to provide a legal framework for public participation for all State organs, including Parliament. One of the possible ways to cure this is to expunge the provisions dealing with public participation in Parliament, if possible, and legislate other organs, if we must. We cannot legislate and give our functions. Standing Order No. 127 and No. 198 on the Attorney General and the Executive tell us how we should conduct public participation. The Constitution has always been our guiding principle. In light of the fact that the Bill may offend Article 94 and Article 124 of the Constitution, I seek your guidance on the following: (i) Whether we can proceed to consider the Bill as drafted. (ii) Is it a constitutional and procedural standing? (iii) Whether its consideration and possible passage is likely to prejudice the authority and the privilege of the House. As I conclude, Hon. Speaker, I want to ask the Justice and Legal Affairs Committee (JLAC) to bring a report to the House. Hon. (Dr.) Otiende Amollo was part of the experts. The Constitution has created specific functions for the three arms of Government. We cannot mortgage our oversight role, representative role and legislative role to another arm of Government. If you look at Standing Order No. 127, it will tell you the procedures of public participation. That is what the courts were using when litigants went to court to take up a matter that the House has legislated. The courts will look at the process of public participation. The implementer is the Clerk of the National Assembly, his directors and staff: to make sure that the process is followed. 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."
}