HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept
{
"id": 1067241,
"url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1067241/?format=api",
"text_counter": 71,
"type": "other",
"speaker_name": "",
"speaker_title": "",
"speaker": null,
"content": "As Hon. Members will recall, I have had, on previous occasion, to address this issue at length in the 11th Parliament during the consideration of the Constitution of Kenya (Amendment) Bill, 2015, sponsored by the Member for Ugenya, the Hon. David Ochieng’. Though the Bill sought to amend the Constitution by parliamentary initiative, the issues raised then are substantively similar to those raised with regard to the present Bill. Hon. Members, in the Communication issued on 20th August 2015 on amendment of a Bill to amend the Constitution by the National Assembly, I guided the House that I would not allow any amendment to be proposed to a Bill to amend the Constitution. The reasons given then, which similarly apply now, are that a plain reading of the operative provisions on amending the Constitution, the sanctity of the Constitution, and previously adopted procedure on constitutional amendments, discourage such a practice. The Communication noted the centrality of the people and their will in any process seeking an amendment to what they agreed to in the form of a social contract and the need for precision in any attempt made to amend the Constitution as follows: “The customs and traditions of our democracy have been to restrict amendment Bills seeking to amend the Constitution. I see no reason to depart from this practice, as the Speaker cannot rely on allegory or allusion in guiding the House. You will note that the preamble to our Constitution highlights that the people of Kenya adopted, enacted and gave themselves and future generations of this Republic, the Constitution. The sanctity of the Constitution as a social contract between the people of Kenya and not a document belonging to the Houses of Parliament, nor any other organ for that matter, is to be jealously safeguarded at every turn. And any process of its amendment is delicate and can only be undertaken with reference to a definite procedure that deviates from the ordinary. Hon. Members, while Parliament has been given the power to amend the Constitution, we should be mindful that the Constitution belongs to the people of this Republic. Treating the process of its amendment as akin to an ordinary legislation would subvert the collective will of the people. In this regard, it is expected that any person intending to amend the Constitution, must be very clear and precise on what he or she is intending to alter, but not to change mind while in the process or midstream. It is my strong view that any proposal to amend the Constitution should be preceded by the meaningful and adequate consultations before such a Bill is published, a principle embodied in Article 256(2) of the Constitution. Bearing in mind that the legislative power is originally derived and consequently vested in the people, we ought to obtain the confidence of our fellow citizens even as we endeavour to amend the Constitution. The process of making or amending the Constitution, therefore, cannot be without consultations, precision and guarded restraint.” Hon. Members, in the same manner, I was minded in 2015, and I am still minded today, to disallow any attempt to amend the Bill currently before the House. Indeed, I would say I am actually more persuaded to disallow any amendment for the sole reason that this is a Bill to amend the Constitution by popular initiative. As noted in my opening remarks, once initiated, a Bill to amend the Constitution by popular initiative is irrepressible to any attempts to delay or derail it. I am of the considered opinion that any attempt to amend the provisions of the Bill directly negates 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."
}