Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1092577,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1092577/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 334,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Ruaraka, ODM",
    "speaker_title": "Hon. T.J. Kajwang’",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 2712,
        "legal_name": "Tom Joseph Kajwang'",
        "slug": "kajwang-tom-joseph-francis"
    },
    "content": "The justification or reasons for which we do this have been explained in a letter to the Hon. Speaker, which has been copied to the Whip of the Majority Party. So, they are aware what is happening. The reasoning here is that the Bill seeks to amend Section 30(3) of the Commission’s Act. Section 30 of the Act, there was a High Court case, namely, the Law Society of Kenya versus the Attorney-General and another, 2016, Kenya Law Reports, which the court expressed itself and struck out that section of law as unconstitutional. It is this section that this Bill is proposing to amend. When the court has expressed itself exercising correct jurisdiction, that section of the law is now not there at all for amendment. This is the thinking. Of course, it came after this Bill had been published. That having been done, there is no section of law to amend. To that extent, therefore, the Bill which seeks to amend what is not there is not only illegal, but is also unconstitutional. We have expressed our legal piece in the long letter and we have explained how that arose. We have even annexed a copy of the judgement to that piece. So, in view of the view that is concurred upon by the Members of the Committee, I wish to apply it to withdraw the Bill. I have done that because I have seen before chairmen of committees coming to withdraw Bills or sections of law and I have been very critical that it cannot be done either without the concurrence of the Committee or without explaining to the plenary exactly the reasons for which you withdraw a Bill. I have seen chairmen of committees taking advantage of their personal views of what they think should be withdrawn or not withdrawn. In this sense, we have given a legal justification. It has been concurred with the Members of the Committee for the withdrawal."
}