Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1097620,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1097620/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 99,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Speaker",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "the public to appear, but you also cannot force them to appear. The courts just require evidence that you invited the public to submit views or to appear before the committee. If the public chooses not to appear, it is like taking cattle to the river and if it refuses to drink the water, you just take it away. It is the same thing. I am sure the pastoralists would know this very well. The courts have always held that whenever there is evidence adduced that Parliament has shown that it advertised for the public to appear or submit views, even if it is one person or the public did not submit their views, then that is satisfactory. They just require the effort that we did not ignore the provisions of Article 118 of the Constitution. And just to be cautious, we are a House of Parliament and we have our own rules in the Standing Orders. It is much easier to provide for this public participation in your Standing Orders rather than in a stand-alone Act of Parliament. The danger of codifying that kind of a process in an Act of Parliament is to tie yourselves. In your own Standing Orders, you can move a motion to suspend an operation of a particular Standing Order and for reasons which are on record. However, when it is in an Act of Parliament, every now and then, if circumstances change, you will have to go through the process of an amendment to that Act of Parliament. You will still have to go to the public and ask them, but they will tell you they are not convinced about that. In fairness, let us consider that because the courts have not faulted the process of public participation. The only thing they have done - and I am speaking from a point of knowledge - is to note that some of the things have been introduced on the Floor and yet, they had been challenged by people out there. For instance, the courts would note that a certain Bill was about this and some other stuff were introduced on the Floor of the House during the Committee of the whole House and yet, the public were not aware that you had considered something or it was to be part of the law. Those are the things that the courts have always pointed out that: “No. On this, you have gone out of your way.” That is why, from time to time, whenever there is a Bill that comes here and is going to the Committee of the whole House, I have to look through the various proposed amendments to see whether they go outside the scope of that Bill. This is because if they go outside the scope and I allow you to consider it here, then it will be of no consequence. You will be happy that it has passed here, but it will run the risk of being outlawed or annulled by the court. That is something that we can always be on the guard. The courts have not, in any way, been gagging the House. Is it you, Hon. Chris Wamalwa, that pointed out Article 94 of the Constitution that, indeed, you are the House that legislates but, sometimes, with the assistance of the other participants? You know them. Hon. Ichung’wah."
}