Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1097613,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1097613/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 92,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Ugenya, MDG",
    "speaker_title": "Hon. David Ochieng’",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 2955,
        "legal_name": "David Ouma Ochieng'",
        "slug": "david-ouma-ochieng"
    },
    "content": "to touch the issues under Article 255 and you are going to do it through a popular initiative, you must do what was done before the 2010 Constitution came to be; whether you must put together a constituent assembly… If that is to be the case and if this House considers to be an important matter, then we just need to make a law, provide for how we will deal with the matters under Article 255. We cannot say that the courts are wrong in saying that there are some issues in the Constitution that are so deeply entrenched that we cannot leave it to one individual. A popular initiative can be promoted by a single individual. You can imagine, if David Ochieng’ would sit down and say that he is proposing that from the next election, we will have specific members of parliament and he therein decides that Nairobi will now have 100 constituencies. Which tools would he have used as an individual to determine that this county will have 100, another will have three and another will have four? The courts, in my opinion, were just reading the Constitution holistically and what they could have added especially on deciding how we can amend the Constitution. I do not believe that every time we amend the Constitution, we will have to go back to the courts and ask them whether this is basic doctrine structure or not. That, for me, is wrong. We cannot keep on going to the courts. Whether a matter belongs to the basic doctrine structure must be decided on a case by case basis. I do not know how many times we have to go to the courts to decide that. That is why I want to say that on this regular issue, Parliament should not have its hands tied on any issue under the sun. I believe this Parliament can amend the Constitution. The only issue is in amending it, let us do our role, vote on it and let the IEBC deal with the issue. If the IEBC wants to go to court to determine whether an issue falls within that legislature or not, should not be our business. Let us do our job, let us not claim that we are being handcuffed in any way and yet, I do not see that in the ruling of the court. I want us, as House, to properly legislate on this matter. This has been said before severally in term of the issue of putting the cart before the horse. Before the BBI was brought to this House or before it was taken to the assemblies, what was difficult in this House passing a law on referendum? What was difficult in us passing a law on how to process Questions? As you retire to do your ruling on this, I want you to be guided not by emotion or sentiments, but by good order, the Constitution and above all, respecting the role of Parliament as the only law-making authority in this country. Thank you, Hon. Speaker."
}