Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1067259,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1067259/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 89,
    "type": "other",
    "speaker_name": "",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "Hon. Members, the High Court in Constitutional Petition Number 282 of 2017, Association of Kenya Medical Laboratory Scientific Officers versus Ministry of Health and the Attorney- General, further observed that: “Public participation is not mere consultation or a public relation exercise without a meaningful purpose”. Hon. Members, looking at other jurisdictions like in South Africa, the same thresholds of public participation have been upheld. Indeed, referring to the famous case of Doctors for Life for International versus the Speaker of the National Assembly and Others 1 CCT2 of 2005, the court held as follows: “What is intimately important is that the Legislature has taken steps to afford the public a reasonable opportunity to participate effectively in the law-making process. Thus, construed there are, at least, two aspects of the duty to facilitate public participation. The first is the duty to provide meaningful opportunities for public participation in the law- making process. The second is the duty to take measures to ensure that the people have the ability to take advantage of the opportunities provided”. I also observe, from the Report, that the Joint Committee gave the public an opportunity to participate in its public hearings. It received extensive submissions from the public and considered, analysed and examined the submissions, as evidenced in its Report. I also note that the Joint Committees considered the submissions in arriving at its findings and recommendations as contained in the Report. To this end, one can observe that the Joint Committees conducted public participation as required by Article 118 of the Constitution and adhered to the standards and thresholds set by the courts on what is meaningful public participation. Having said this, and in answering the question raised by the Member for Garissa Township regarding the value of public participation on a Bill that may not be amended, it is notable that the submissions made by the public are intended to apprise the Members of this House and assist them to make informed decisions during the consideration of this Bill at Second Reading, Committee of the whole House and the Third Reading. Certainly, any Member of this House is at liberty to raise any of the issues submitted by the public as contained in the Joint Report in making submissions at Second Reading and, indeed, is expected to make an informed decision as to whether to pass or reject the Bill. Hon. Members, the submissions of the public have been analysed in the Report and are also attached as annexes to the Report and Members may make reference to them. It is my considered opinion that the ventilation of the issues raised by the public during public participation also fall within the definition of meaningful public participation as espoused in Article 118 of the Constitution. This exercise shall, in the end, also assist the people to make an informed decision on whether to approve or reject the Bill when the Bill is submitted to a referendum in terms of Article 257(10) of the Constitution. In addition, it is my observation that the Joint Report as contained in paragraphs 406 of its Report also found that the public participation process is critical to the processing of the Bill as it is through the process that Parliament would identify any areas of concern on the proposed amendments and noting errors of form for correction. The Joint Committees also found that the process would also enable the Members to harvest the views of the public on the Bill and decide whether to vote to approve or reject the Bill. I think with this, the issue is now settled."
}