Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1028776,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1028776/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 56,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Sen. Wako",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 366,
        "legal_name": "Amos Sitswila Wako",
        "slug": "amos-wako"
    },
    "content": "We must insist on having two certificates as stipulated in Article110 (3) of the Constitution which states that: ‘Before either House considers a Bill, the Speakers of the National Assembly and Senate shall 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.’ We would like to have certificates on all Bills stating that the two Speakers have met and considered the Bill in question and jointly agreed on whether a Bill concerns counties or not. That consensus should be reached by the two Speakers before any Bill is tabled before the National Assembly or the Senate. If we do that, I believe that we would have achieved our purpose in ensuring that the Senate is part of the bicameral legislature under our Constitution. At the conclusion of the whole procedure and before the matter goes to the President, there should be another concurrence certificate as Sen. Wetangula mentioned earlier. We must explore ways to make sure that it is part of our Standing Orders. If we do that, the President would be firmly protected from anything. The Judiciary has ruled that the President assented to Bills that were not Bills at all. This is very embarrassing to him. The President normally assents to Bills that are passed in Parliament in the presence of either the Speaker of the Senate or Speaker of the National Assembly, the Attorney-General, the Solicitor-General and many other people. I do not know whether things have changed but when I was the Attorney-General, the President would never assent to any Bill before I gave a certification that the Bill is properly before him and that it had gone through all the procedures in Parliament. We should have amended the Constitution to ensure that the Attorney-General examines whether a Bill has consensus of both Houses of Parliament before being presented to the President for assent. The Attorney-General has a very important role to play in giving certification that a Bill has properly passed through Parliament. The Attorney-General cannot establish consensus on a Bill if the Speakers of both Houses have not signed it. If the law remains as it is, and it is properly implemented, we would have solved our problems. All in all, it would have been better if it was expressly stated in the Constitution that the Senate has a role to play in all the Bills before Parliament. It was clearly stated in the Constitution that the Senate has a role to play in all the Bills. I can tell you that my opinion was, and it remains my opinion that the Senate should consider all the Bills and that Bills that touch on counties should originate in the Senate while all other Bills should originate from the National Assembly. That is my position, it has been my position, it was my position and it remains my position up to this time that I am speaking. I hope that you get the message. Mr. Speaker, Sir, on the Building Bridges Initiative (BBI) process, all that I would say is that, I thank Sen. Okong’o Omogeni Omogusi, for representing us very well yesterday in Naivasha. Various caucuses were asked to give their opinions on a matter before the plenary and I believe that I heard him say that after consultations, although the Bill says; “harmonize the processes in the Bicameral Parliament”, the Bill does not have that. Therefore, it is necessary that that aspect of the matter be gone into. I hope that 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."
}