HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept
{
"id": 1028752,
"url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1028752/?format=api",
"text_counter": 32,
"type": "speech",
"speaker_name": "Sen. Omogeni",
"speaker_title": "",
"speaker": {
"id": 13219,
"legal_name": "Erick Okong'o Mogeni",
"slug": "erick-okongo-mogeni"
},
"content": "When we started this suit there was a lot of ridicule from our colleagues from the National Assembly. Others kept on reminding us that they are the one who disburse money and participate in budget making process and, therefore, the Judiciary would be cowed and may not give orders that are favourable to the Senate, but here we are. Having kept faith in our Judiciary, we have gotten a judgement that has for once restated the role that your office, as the Speaker, should play in making determination on Bills that affect counties. This is a landmark decision because it is not every day that courts can nullify a total of 24 Acts of Parliament. In addition, two Standing Orders of the National Assembly have been declared unconstitutional. It is a big win for the Constitution that we enacted in 2010, and for the courts. Mr. Speaker, Sir, the second point I want to make is that I want to thank our courts that have come out and exhibited courage in making a pronouncement of this nature. If there is a time that we, as Senators, should fight for the independence of the Judiciary, this is the time. Without the Judiciary, I dare say without the many decisions that we have gotten that have been favourable to the Senate right from the Supreme Court or through to the High Court, this Senate would have really been weakened. However, with this decision, the authority of this House in participating in the legislative process has been affirmed by the courts. Mr. Speaker, Sir, I have heard fears being expressed that the Members of National Assembly may intend to appeal to the Court of Appeal. First, I want to request our colleagues in the National Assembly to go back and reflect on the number of decisions that have come both from the Supreme Court - two of them - and one from the High Court and then make a very pragmatic decision on whether it is worthwhile proceeding to appeal on this matter. Mr. Speaker, Sir, if your read this judgment in detail, it is merely restating and reaffirming the findings of the Supreme Court on these matters. Lawyers in this House will tell you that decisions from the Supreme Court are binding on the Court of Appeal and the High Court. If wisdom was prevailing, Members of the National Assembly should accept that we have a Bicameral Parliament, which constitutes of the National Assembly and the Senate. They should come to the realization that the Senate is here to stay and that we must play our role as outlined under Articles 93 and 94 of the Constitution in the legislative process. However, should they insist and proceed to the Court of Appeal, we assure them that we will still be here. We will appear for this House pro bono and we will be there to defend this decision to finality. Finally, Mr. Speaker, Sir, the ball now shifts to you. This judgment places your office on the driver’s seat. It is you who will be making a determination on whether a Bill concerns counties, or it does not concern counties. I want to make reference to the findings of the Supreme Court in Reference No.2 of 2013, where the Supreme Court made a finding to the effect that almost all legislations in one way or another, affect counties. If you want to pass a law that touches on security, that is a Bill that affects counties. If you want to talk about National Government - The electronic version of the Senate Hansard Report is for information purposesonly. A certified version of this Report can be obtained from the Hansard Editor, Senate."
}