Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1065389,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1065389/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 18,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Kangema, JP",
    "speaker_title": "Hon. Clement Kigano",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 13358,
        "legal_name": "Clement Muturi Kigano",
        "slug": "clement-muturi-kigano"
    },
    "content": "Hon. Speaker, I have looked at the definition of the terms “sovereignty” and “sovereign”. There is a dictionary called Black’s Law Dictionary. Its definition is in line with another authoritative journal from Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute. Both surmise sovereignty as a political concept that refers to dominant power or supreme authority. The whole of that is respectively underpinned. It goes on to say that the sovereign is the one who exercises power without limitation. This means when the people of Kenya exercise authority to formulate a Bill under Article 257 of the Constitution, they have no limitations whatsoever. The Concise Oxford English Dictionary is also in accord with that definition. It defines sovereignty as supreme power or authority. Then it goes further - and this is important - to define sovereign as the supreme ruler. That is why in places like England, the Queen is referred to as sovereign. Here, Wanjiku is the sovereign. Article 1 of the Constitution is coached in a manner that it has alternatives. The alternative is the exercise of power through an institution like this House pursuant to Article 256 of the Constitution. The phraseology is disjunctive; direct or indirect are not the same. It is not “direct and indirect” but “direct or indirect” and those two are different. Here, we are on the first phrase which is direct exercise of Wanjiku’s sovereign authority. Therefore, this House unequivocally has no power to amend or alter the Bill in its present form or in any other way. In fact, it does not even have the residual power everybody calls inherent to amend or interfere with the structure or architecture. Let us not talk about the schedule or Articles 87 or 89 of the Constitution. No! You have no power. If Wanjiku predicted or intended the House to have power to amend it, it would have been easier to expressly say so. Wanjiku would have said so. Therefore, Article 257 of the Constitution is exclusive and self-regulatory. You may think there is a lacuna, but that is the intention of Wanjiku. There is no lacuna as far as Wanjiku is concerned. I looked at inherent and this is what we sometimes call the wild or unruly horse. But here I cannot see any verse or place for inherent authority. As I have said, as an institution created by Wanjiku, we are her servants. This House is a servant creature of Wanjiku. We have a singular and joint noble duty to scrupulously and jealously guard against the interception of Wanjiku’s initiative. Her wish is independent and she has the sole authority. Hon. Speaker, again, I emphasise without apologies for repetition that we cannot amend this Bill in its present form or substance thereof. The Bill remains intact as transmitted to us by the county speakers by way of certifications. We must, whether we pass it or not, transmit it wholesome for the people to hold referendum on it. In fact, we must ensure what was brought forward is the same that goes to the people and when we have majority, the referendum is carried. I must emphasise here that there may be errors of mis-description of Article 87(7) being called Article 89(4) or a Cabinet Secretary being referred to as a Cabinet Minister. Those are not material and do not change what Wanjiku intended to say. They do not go to the root. The Attorney-General under the revision of laws or our Speaker under the Standing Orders, which I am not certain, can deal with that. I leave this to him because he has general and inherent powers to help this House and Bill because this is a case of a rose by another name. These are what we call in law errors apparent on record drawing analogy. These are errors that are apparent on the face of the Bill but do not go to the root of the substance or intention of Wanjiku. So long as we do not kill that intention, these are superficial errors that do not affect the tenure of the Bill. In our noble calling, we as Members of this august House and leaders in this country must live by example. We are singularly, jointly and constitutionally enjoined to invoke, implement and protect the concept of national values and principles of governance as set out in Article 10 of the 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."
}