Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1097642,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1097642/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 121,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Seme, ODM",
    "speaker_title": "Hon. (Dr.) James Nyikal",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 434,
        "legal_name": "James Nyikal",
        "slug": "james-nyikal"
    },
    "content": "What I see is that we are in the process of implementing the Constitution and, perhaps, there are certain areas, like where we got ourselves into now, that we have not looked into. It looks to me that it is very important that the Committee on Implementation of the Constitution should constantly look at our Constitution and point out areas where there are gaps that would create problems, or they were to be handled at a time of a crisis when interests are high. That is the basic issue that we came up with. What went on in court on the BBI was to a large extent the process of how Wanjiku would start a popular initiative. That was the main issue. It looks like when we have an area where there is no clear letter of the word, then obviously the courts have to make their decisions, and it attracts a lot of interpretation from many people including non- lawyers. We need to have those clearly stated somewhere. It is also sad because when you get into such a situation, the contents of the issue of the BBI initiative get lost in the process. Once that happens, the whole process gets politicised and it is now easy to see it in terms of those who are pro and against, instead of the content of what is being discussed. The only content I saw here was the basic structure doctrine. This phrase has become so popular. I am not a lawyer but, it has become so popular. It is so romantic that it looks like something that you cannot touch. I cannot imagine people coming together to create a constitution and then they are told: “Even you cannot touch this Constitution you created”. How can that be? Even the provisions in our Constitution that said do this and this if you want to change the Constitution, you go through a referendum, to some extent really, gave what that basic structure is. That is probably what we should have used. Having said that, go beyond the issues before us when you are considering your guidance. Look at the whole of this great Constitution we have and keep seeing areas we need to look at as we implement it. Every day even in the functioning of Government or the relationship between the county governments and the national Government, we constantly find ourselves where we are not clear on what should be done. I think that is okay. It should be a living document. We have a structure for looking at it. That is what we should look into. As you give us guidance, I think that we should let the process go to the Supreme Court. My argument for that is we should hear what the judges are saying — what they said in the High Court, what they are saying in the Court of Appeal and what they are going to say in the Supreme Court. Then, we will take all those issues to guide us as a House to get the processes and procedures that we need. Thank you, Hon. Speaker."
}