Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1132903,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1132903/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 15,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Speaker",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "ought to be approached as a qualitative and not cosmetic exercise. Indeed, the High Court recently observed in Constitutional Petition No.E001/2021 with respect to public participation, that: “All parties interested in legislation should feel that they have been given a real opportunity to have their say; that they are taken seriously as citizens and their views matter and will receive due consideration at the moment when they could possibly influence decisions in a meaningful decision. The objective is both symbolical and practical. The persons concerned must be manifestly shown respect due to their concern and the legislators must have the benefit of all inputs that will enable them to produce the best possible laws.” Hon. Members, the question that arises then is who between the Petitioners and the Committee is competent to withdraw a matter for which the intervention of this House has been sought? You will agree with me that justice would demand that only a party seeking redress should be allowed to withdraw its request. In my view, allowing the Committee to abruptly discontinue the process of actualising the Petitioners prayers without any reference to them negates the spirit of Article 119 of the Constitution. Notably, Hon. Members, I do observe that the recommendation of the Committee on Page 20 of its Report - that, Parliament amend the Advocates Act (CAP 16 Laws of Kenya) - and its conscious decision to introduce the Bill in the House was made with the Committee having taken into account the submissions received from stakeholders, including the Attorney-General. Hon. Members, in seeking to withdraw the said Bill, the Committee alluded to the fact that the Attorney-General and the Department of Justice of the Republic of Kenya were formulating two Bills, namely, the Kenya School of Law (Amendment) Bill and the Council for Legal Education (Amendment) Bill, which would encompass the proposals contained in the Advocates (Amendment) Bill, 2021. Perhaps the Committee would have noted the express provisions of Article 94(5) of the Constitution, which states as follows: “94 (5) No person or body other than Parliament has the power to make provisions having the force of law in Kenya except under authority conferred by this Constitution or by legislation.” Hon. Members, the Petitioners approached this House well aware that no other body has power to anchor into law the prayers sought in their Petition. Clearly, the two draft Bills referred to in the letter by the Chair of the Departmental Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs have not been introduced in this House either under Standing Order 114 by a Member or under Standing Order 114A by the Leader of Majority Party. Consequently, the draft Bills referred to are unknown to this House and cannot be used as a reason to deny the Petitioners the audience of the House as sought. Indeed, the claim is outside the prayers of the Petitioners. Hon. Members, majority of the work of a House is discharged through its various committees, which consider matters committed to them and recommend various actions for resolution by the House. At this point, the Committee is and remains an agent of the House and is not an end by itself in matters legislation. Hon. Members, the Committee, in the spirit of Article 119 of the Constitution, is required to respond conclusively to a legislative request from aggrieved members of the public. It had, by publishing the Bill, adhered to the first part of its legislative mandate in accordance with the recommendations of its own Report. The second part of its mandate would entail spearheading the processing of the Bill in the House through its various stages as if it originated the idea behind the Bill. However, it now seems that the Committee is either unable or unwilling to undertake this second part of its mandate. Hon. Members, the Chairperson of the Departmental Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs has, through his letter, has given formal indication that he is not desirous of prosecuting The electronic version of the Official Hansard Report is for information purposesonly. A certified version of this Report can be obtained from the Hansard Editor."
}