HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept
{
"id": 1057674,
"url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1057674/?format=api",
"text_counter": 16,
"type": "speech",
"speaker_name": "Hon. Speaker",
"speaker_title": "",
"speaker": null,
"content": "on the Draft Bill as at close of business yesterday, Monday, 1st March 2021 were Migori, Elgeyo Marakwet, Uasin Gishu, Mandera and Kilifi. This notwithstanding, Hon. Members, it will be recalled that the Speaker of the Senate and I did communicate to our respective Houses that the Draft Constitution of Kenya (Amendment) Bill, 2020, popularly referred to as the BBI Bill, has met the threshold contemplated under Article 257(7) of the Constitution, having been approved by a majority of the county assemblies. Hon. Members, having said that, there are two procedural questions that have been brought to my attention relating to the process of consideration in Parliament of a Bill under Article 257 of the Constitution. These two issues are: (i) Should the Bill be republished, and if so, what value would the republication add to the process; and, (ii) Does Standing Order No.120 regarding the 14 days maturity period apply to such a Bill before its introduction in Parliament? Hon. Members, you will recall that, during the period of admitting returns from the county assemblies with respect to the Punguza Mizigo Initiative, the Speaker of the Senate and I observed that our rules of procedure are deficient with respect to fully actualising the parliamentary process contemplated under Article 257 of the Constitution. With respect to the 14 days maturity period before First Reading, the House is aware that the maturity period is a commonwealth parliamentary practice which is aimed at according the House, and indeed, the public, a notification period on the presence of a Bill before its formal introduction in the House by way of First Reading. This, however, applies to a Bill being introduced in a House for the first time. It does not apply to a Bill that has originated from another House. As such, Bills originating from the Senate are not subjected to this publication period. However, Hon. Members, with respect to a Bill under Article 257 of Constitution, such notice period would serve little value. As Members will note, Article 257 of the Constitution contemplates expeditious processing of a Bill to amend the Constitution by popular initiative. Specifically, Clause 7 of the Article, which notes that such a Bill shall be introduced in Parliament without undue delay, is, in my view, instructive. To my mind, the urgency implied by the provision seems to be drawn from the lengthy process attached to the consideration of the Bill in terms of collection of signatures in support, verification of said signatures, public participation by the various county assemblies and, ultimately, approval by the assemblies. I am of the considered opinion, therefore, that the House is under obligation to do everything necessary within its powers to expedite the introduction of the Bill for consideration. Hon. Members, in our consultations over the processing of the Bill in the two Houses, the Speaker of the Senate and I were initially of the view that it should be republished before its introduction with minor changes to reflect the current year (2021) on its face and to include a footnote indicating its approval by a majority of the county assemblies pursuant to the provisions of Article 257(7) of the Constitution. Indeed, the Clerks of the Houses of Parliament who had been directed to republish the Bill had so requested the Government Printer to expedite the republication of the said Bill. However, Hon. Members, you should note that should the Bill be republished with the said footnotes, it completely changes from being the Bill which has been approved and considered by the various county assemblies."
}