HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept
{
"id": 1115334,
"url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1115334/?format=api",
"text_counter": 15,
"type": "speech",
"speaker_name": "Hon. Deputy Speaker",
"speaker_title": "",
"speaker": null,
"content": "Majority Party, the Majority Whip, the Hon. (Dr.) Eseli Simiyu, the Hon. T.J. Kajwang, the Hon. John Mose, the Hon. (Dr.) Otiende Amollo, the Hon. Peter Kaluma, the Hon. (Dr.) Robert Pukose, the Hon. Stephen Mule, the Hon. (Dr.) James Nyikal, the Hon. John Kiarie, the Hon. Jared Okello, and the Hon. Gideon Koske, among others. In their arguments, the Members claimed that the proposed amendments, if carried, would substantially alter the composition of various statutory and regulatory boards and councils in the health sector and should, therefore, have been contained in separate Bills seeking to amend the relevant Statutes, rather than being brought through an omnibus Bill as is the case now. It was further claimed that the Bill was ill-intended, particularly because it sought to domicile control of the regulatory or statutory boards and councils in the Executive by excluding stakeholders and professional bodies from membership. This, it was claimed, is contrary to the provisions of Article 10 of the Constitution which places public participation at the core of our national values and principles of governance. Hon. Members, you will agree with me that the matters raised by the Hon. Duale and other Members are weighty and would have merited the direction of the Speaker before any further action is taken on the Bill. However, I did guide, in the interim, that debate on Second Reading of the Bill proceeds in the event that the Order under which the Bill was listed in the Order Paper for that day was to be reached. My decision was based on the principle that, as your Speaker, my role is largely facilitative and not obstructive. Hence, I should, as much as possible, allow the House to proceed to transact its business unimpeded, even when reservations have been raised, as long as a decision is not taken until a determination of any substantive question raised by a Member is made. From my understanding of the issues raised by the Member for Garissa Township, I am being invited to find that to the extent that the Health Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2021 proposes to limit involvement of professional bodies and various sector stakeholders in statutory and regulatory boards in the health sector and domiciled their appointment within the ambit of the Executive, the amendments are unconstitutional and therefore untenable as they negate the realisation of the national values and principles of governance espoused by Article 10 of the Constitution. Hon. Members, there is no contestation that Article 3 of the Constitution obligates me to respect, uphold and defend the Constitution. I would ordinarily, therefore, be required to forestall any affront to the Constitution by whichever manner, including legislation before this House, if indeed the concerns raised by the Member for Garissa Township are valid. Having said that, let me emphasise that the path for determining unconstitutionality or otherwise of the amendment under consideration of this House ought to be navigated with caution lest the House be unnecessarily gagged from exercising its constitutional mandate. Hon. Members, as you are aware, I have previously hesitated to determine questions of constitutionality raised in this House. Even when I ruled on 19th September, 2019 that clauses 50 and 51 be severed from the Finance Bill, 2019 for failure by the Cabinet Secretary (CS) to disclose in the accompanying memoranda that the two clauses would limit the right to privacy as required in Article 24 of the Constitution, I was categorical that the determination was only related to the procedural defects in the manner in which the proposed amendments had been presented. I also clarified that at that stage, the question as to whether the two clauses would offend the Constitution if they were to comply with the standard of disclosure set in the Constitution and introduced as a separate Bill did not arise."
}