Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1013194,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1013194/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 140,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Rarieda, ODM",
    "speaker_title": "Hon. (Dr.) Otiende Amollo",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 13465,
        "legal_name": "Paul Otiende Amollo",
        "slug": "paul-otiende-amollo"
    },
    "content": " Thank you, Hon. Speaker. I thank Hon. Duale for raising these matters. I agree with Hon. Duale’s conclusion, but not his reasoning. While I agree that Parliament cannot be infringed upon by taking jurisdiction that belongs to it and placing it on the Executive - as perhaps suggested in Clause 13 of the Bill - I must point out that this would not be the first Bill where Parliament has donated powers to make subsidiary legislation to the Attorney-General. It is precedented. In any event, even when it is donated, by the legislation that we pass, namely, the Statutory Instruments Act, delegated legislation will not be the authority until it comes back to us. Eventually, we give our stamp of approval through the Committee on Delegated Legislation. On the face of it, I would not take that as offending the Constitution. Secondly, we can and ought to legislate on public participation. The Constitution mentions public participation in almost seven different articles. They are not all confined to Parliament. Therefore, when we seek to make this legislation, we do not make it only for ourselves. We seek to regulate it for all other bodies. The reference articles are 10, 69, 118, 184, 196, 201 and 232. By itself, I would not take that as an infringement. We really need a law on public participation. I agree with Hon. Duale for a different reason. I intended to raise this. Last week, when this Bill was moved by Hon. Kizito, I heard the Members who submitted and I immediately realised the confusion. Most Members were submitting on a different Bill. They were making submissions on the Public Participation Bill No.71 which bears the name of Hon. Wamalwa. The one before this House is the Public Participation Bill No.69. This confusion, therefore, underpins why we need to step back and rationalise this. First of all, we have two Bills. Some of the provisions do not tally. It may not be in good order to proceed to debate that Bill and either pass it or not without rationalising it with the others. Secondly, you will remember that only last week, you communicated and indicated that the Public Participation Bill No.2 is also pending before the Departmental Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. Those are now three Bills. I, therefore, agree with Hon. Duale that it may be 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."
}