Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1065408,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1065408/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 37,
    "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": "We agreed that while the role of Parliament is restricted, it is not ceremonial. It is not ceremonial because if you look at Article 94 (1) and (3), you will see that Parliament is the sieve through which anything that becomes law in this country must come. Parliament is restricted when it is popular initiative but it is not ceremonial. I will explain that a little more. Parliament cannot substitute its views for the views of the promoters. Therefore, Parliament cannot make any substantive change to a document that has come through popular initiative. Parliament, on close reading of Article 94 (1) and (3) has that inherent authority to correct any errors of form or typo which are consistent with the intentions of the promoters and which does not substitute the intention of the promoters. So, if the promoter meant Article 89 (7) and it reads Article 87 (7), which does not exist, Parliament can in its discretion correct that. As to whether we choose or not, that is for us. It depends on whether that typo has any grave legal consequences. As I will show later, in our case, it does not. Hon. Speaker, we agreed unanimously that in this process, a referendum is a must. This document must be taken to the people in a referendum. That is agreed. We also agreed that public participation is not perfunctory, it is not salutary; it is substantive. It is substantive, first, because it is a constitutional requirement. If we do not do it, then the process is in danger of nullification. It is also necessary because it helps us identify some of those gaps and how we deal with them as we have. More importantly also, it helps us make up our mind whether we want to vote yes or no. It helps the country to make up its mind whether it would want to vote yes or no. We did examine some very specific issues which have been raised as unconstitutional. One is the question of the Judiciary ombudsman, two is the question of removal of vetting of Ministers and Permanent Secretaries (PSs), three is the question of regulation of professional fees, and four is the question of the manner in which the two-thirds gender principle has been put in the Constitution. I am happy to tell you, Hon. Speaker, and this House that after thorough examination - and you will see that in the Report and even after engagement with the experts that we had engaged with - we came to unanimous conclusion that none of those provisions are unconstitutional. Some people may find them undesirable but undesirability and constitutionality are two different things. As long as it is constitutional, if the people agree with it, then it is okay. I want to say this and I want to say it categorically, and this is where the one issue of constitutionality arises, as a matter of law, and this is where I disagree with my Chairman, a constitutional amendment can be unconstitutional in two ways."
}