Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1050608,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1050608/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 171,
    "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": "Hon. Speaker, the first aspect on Clause 5(8) was raised by the Leader of the Majority Party. That clause is quite simple as it contemplates under (a), a situation where you are having an amendment which does not require a referendum, which then fails or succeeds in Parliament. The second bit requires a referendum such as what we are facing. You will take notice that today is what we have called the Super Tuesday. It is a significant day because 30 county assemblies have endorsed the draft the Building Bridges Initiative (BBI) Bill, and I believe the next scene of action will be this House and the Senate. Hon. Speaker, some Members spoke to the question of the Supreme Court. Why are we not going to the Supreme Court on such a fundamental issue of a referendum? The answer is that the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is captured under Article 163(4) of the Constitution and to the extent that the jurisdiction is covered, you cannot grant a new jurisdiction to the Supreme Court, unless you amend the Constitution. The election petitions are able to go there directly because that is what the Constitution states. If we are so desirous, then that is something to consider in terms of amending the Constitution. We cannot bring it by way of a Referendum Bill. As we do that, we must be alive to the fact that as contemplated right now, the process of challenge will take up to 72 days, two-and- a-half months, from the High Court to the Court of Appeal. Do we want to prolong that period of holding the will of the people in abeyance? The Committee considered that concern. Hon. Speaker, there was a fundamental issue in terms of the multiple questions. This bears an explanation and there are two things to note: First, while a reading of Article 257(1) and (2) might suggest that you can proceed in a referendum by way of a general suggestion or a formulated draft Bill, Article 257(3) is clear. It states that, if it is a popular initiative in the form of a general suggestion, then the promoters of that Bill shall formulate it to a draft Bill. Under Article 257 of the Constitution, you can only bring a Bill and there is no question of general ideas. We must disabuse the supposition that you can bring general and multiple suggestions. The Constitution requires the promoters to reduce their ideas to a Bill. You will note that on Page 30 of the JLAC Report and on Page 9 of the Joint Committee of JLAC and CIOC Report, we were unanimous that you can only reduce your ideas to a draft Bill. There was also a question of whether we can do a general referendum. These issues will be coming at the Committee of the whole House stage. As a Committee, we came to the conclusion that the only referendum expressly contemplated by the Constitution is under Article 255 to 257. There is no other provision of the Constitution that appears to contemplate any other referendum. The Question would be whether we can bring general issues. Article 1 contemplates that people can exercise their sovereignty either directly or through their elected representatives. Some people have suggested that if you have such issues, then you should bring them to the elected representatives of the people. Others have suggested that nothing stops you from doing so. However, that is not for this debate now. As we contemplate it, we must know that this can also be abused. As much as you could want to have a positive referendum, what if you have a mischievous President who will ask the question in a referendum that they want to be President for life, without amending the Constitution? What will happen if in a local referendum you have a county that poses the question that they want to secede? As we contemplate that possibility, we must be alive to the dangers of opening that door. Many Members spoke to the question of verification and it is a very difficult question. It should be noted that all the Members who spoke to this raised the question, but did not give an answer and it is precisely because of the difficulty. We contemplated that the Commission will 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."
}