Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1028415,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1028415/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 80,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Suba South, ODM",
    "speaker_title": "Hon. John Mbadi",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 110,
        "legal_name": "John Mbadi Ng'ong'o",
        "slug": "john-mbadi"
    },
    "content": " Thank you, Hon. Speaker. I am a bit hesitant, but this ruling forces us to be close to discussing the conduct of judges. What we are expressing here – if you allow us – is general concern about constitutionalism in this country. The mistake we made – I stand indicted because I was in the 10th Parliament – is that we allowed from the 9th Parliament, people from the civil society to take over the assignment of constitution making that was critical. As people’s representatives, we should have taken keen interest on it and played a big role in coming up with a new Constitution. If you look at our Constitution, there are issues that clearly should not have been in it. We ought to have come out clearly that a Bill that does not concern counties should be legislated by the National Assembly. There was no need for the two Speakers to talk and agree. That was unnecessary. However, we are where we are today because of allowing the duty of Members to be executed by other players outside the bracket of people’s representatives. The civil society is doing a good job, but they are just supposed to hold us accountable and not to come up with a document as important as the Constitution that governs the people of a country yet they are not elected. They will be speaking for who? They are supposed to hold us to account. It shocks me that the court can pronounce itself on 23 laws that have been passed and order that they be annulled. In my view, what the courts could have done is to talk about the future. For example that, going forward, we advise that the two Houses should relate this way. That would have made sense to me. But going to the extent of annulling the Appropriation Act that is clear -- - Sometimes, before lawyers make judgments, they should seek professional input on certain areas which are not directly legal from professionals. If there is one thing that is clearly provided for in the Constitution as a function of the National Assembly, it is appropriation. It is clear that the financial estimates are tabled in the National Assembly and discussed, then the Budget and Appropriations Committee seeks public views and presents a report to the House. That report is turned into an Appropriation Bill that is passed by the National Assembly. How on earth would someone imagine to annul such a process that is clear in the Constitution and insist that you need to seek the opinion of the Speaker of the Senate on it as if you are an idiot? It is clear. You can read it and understand it. The interpretation of the Constitution should be done in a way that promotes the values of the Constitution. When you do the opposite because you are a judge… That is why those who are opposing the Judiciary ombudsman should change their minds and stop playing politics. The Judiciary needs someone to oversee them. On the Legislature, as you can see, the Judiciary is pronouncing itself on its work. On the Executive, the Judiciary does the same. Parliament oversees the Executive. Who oversees the Judiciary? Nobody. They think they are law unto themselves. We need a body to which we can also express our frustrations. We just engage with them as a House, but there is no one to check what the Judiciary does. Hon. Speaker, as I agree with your ruling and with due respect to the Leader of the Majority Party, I want to caution that we should not take any drastic measures that may hurt other players or people who are not even party to this case. Let us see how best we can deal with this matter. I think the direction the House Business Committee has taken is the best. Let us appeal the ruling but Kenyans should engage. We should discuss the powers of the Judiciary. They should know 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."
}