Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1038008,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1038008/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 410,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Suba North, ODM",
    "speaker_title": "Hon. (Ms.) Odhiambo-Mabona",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 376,
        "legal_name": "Millie Grace Akoth Odhiambo Mabona",
        "slug": "millie-odhiambo-mabona"
    },
    "content": "this matter be brought to Parliament. When I actually look at the documentation, what we have that has been brought to us, that is why it is actually under statutory instruments, is Legal Notice No. 114. What it then does is basically to get Parliament to approve the subsidiary legislation pertaining to the agreement. My worry is that the court did not make a direction on subsidiary legislation. The court made a direction in relation to the treaty. Section 3 of the Treaty Making and Ratification Act talks about the application. It says: (1) “This Act applies to treaties which are concluded by Kenya after the commencement of this Act. (2) This Act shall apply to - (a) multilateral treaties; (b) bilateral treaties which deal with - (i) the security of Kenya, its sovereignty, independence, unity or territorial integrity; (ii) the rights and duties of citizens of Kenya;” Hon. Speaker, if you actually look at it from a very narrow perspective, then you would say that this agreement may be excluded maybe for somebody who wants to look at the word “tax” or “finance” or such wording. However, if you look at (b) which talks about rights and duties of Kenyans, then it actually falls within the framework of the Treaty Making and Ratification Act. So, what should be before this House is not this document that has been brought to us. What should be here, based on the decision by the court, is actually the treaty itself so that Parliament gives approval before the Government of Kenya agrees. I am glad the Chair of the Departmental Committee on Finance and National Planning is here. We need to actually have a meeting with the relevant Ministries and inform them that any further agreements that they go through, so long as it touches on the issue of rights and duties of Kenyans – and there are so many fiscal responsibilities that are expected of Kenyans in the Constitution and there are many rights of Kenyans that touch on this, including the right to non- discrimination through double taxation – it actually falls squarely under the Treaty Making and Ratification Act. If this team that went to court were to go to court again, then we are likely to see the ratification coming back. This is because what I believe the court was saying in essence is that the process of ratification that the Government of Kenya went through was flawed. Since we have this law, the Government must now do things the right way. I am the one who sponsored the Treaty Making and Ratification Act. It was at a time that is very similar to BBI here. We had people who were opposing the Constitution by saying that there were provisions that took away the legislative power of Parliament. So, we brought the legislative power of treaty making back to Parliament. What we are having now are people who are not used to that who are now using shortcuts to do treaties without the involvement of Parliament. We have formed a dual approach now that treaty making in Kenya must now come to Parliament. I think all the relevant departments and Ministries ought to be informed. With that, I reserve whether I am supporting or not because I think we have a flawed system. In principle, I support the treaty, but the process is flawed. I thank you."
}