Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1055343,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1055343/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 126,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Garissa Township, JP",
    "speaker_title": "Hon. Aden Duale",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 15,
        "legal_name": "Aden Bare Duale",
        "slug": "aden-duale"
    },
    "content": "shall, within 30 days from the date of the approval of the ratification of treaty, request the Cabinet Secretary to prepare the instrument of ratification of the treaty.” That is one function if we approve. Section 9(2) states: “Where a treaty referred to in Section 7 is approved for ratification with reservations to some provisions of the treaty, the treaty shall be ratified without reservations to the corresponding article in the treaty.” That means the House can have reservations. Even if we have reservations, they will just remain that way. This House will approve the treaty. The reservations will not be binding on the Executive. The last one, Section 9(3), states: “Where the National Assembly refuses to approve the ratification of the treaty referred to in Section 7, the Government shall not ratify the treaty.” This House has three functions. To ratify with reservations which are not binding and/or reject. My good friend, Hon. Kiarie, should propose an amendment to the Treaty Making and Ratification Act. The agency he is talking about requires an amendment of the Treaty Making and Ratification Act. Instead of bringing all those amendments, you should amend the Act. As we sit here, the Treaty Making and Ratification Act does not give this House any leeway. Those who sat in the 11th Parliament like Hon. Mbadi and Hon. Millie who originated this Act and I knew that this House needed to re-look at the Act. As of tonight, we have only three options. The Legal Department of this House which prepared this amendment embarrasses the Hon. Speaker by approving it. They should have rejected it on the basis of Section 9 of the Act. That is why I am raising the constitutionality of this amendment. Let us not waste a lot of time."
}