Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1174547,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1174547/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 155,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Sen. Omogeni",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 13219,
        "legal_name": "Erick Okong'o Mogeni",
        "slug": "erick-okongo-mogeni"
    },
    "content": "We must speak with one voice to reject the attempt by the National Assembly to consider and pass these amendments at this time and without reference to the Senate. I call upon our Majority Leader and Minority leader to immediately get in touch with their counterparts in the National Assembly to ensure that this Bill is not proceeded with. The amendments contained in the said Bill are not urgent and can be considered substantively by the two Houses once Parliament is convened. You will notice that one of the proposed amendments at Page 821 is a proposal to amend the Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Act to bar MCAs Members of Parliament and Senators, who are under investigations and not who have been convicted, not to access Parliament and even exercise powers of their offices. Those are far-reaching amendments, which should not be effected through a Miscellaneous Amendment Bill. At Page 826 of The Statute Law (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill, the Leader of Majority of the National Assembly states that this is a bill that does not concern county governments, but if you recall, this House has had benefit of debating the Law of reference to this House from the National Assembly; the Roads (Amendment) Bill. If you peruse this Statute Law (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill, among the laws that are proposed to be amended is the Roads Act. This Bill is mischievous; it is an attempt by the National Assembly to pass a Bill at the tail-end of their tenure, which is manifestly on the face of it, unconstitutional. I have risen to bring this matter to House and seek your directions. Madam Deputy Speaker, if you allow me, I would also want to update this House that if the House recalls, we had filed a High Court Civil Suit No.E84, where we had gotten some orders from the High Court compelling the two Speakers to seek concurrence, in line with Article 110 of the Constitution before any Bill is processed. That particular order of the High Court was set aside by the Court of Appeal and we subsequently proceeded and filed an application in the Supreme Court seeking stay. On the 19th May, 2022, we got orders from the Supreme Court that stayed the orders of the Court of Appeal. In essence, the status quo was that the two Speakers must have concurrence before any Bill is processed. However, in a sequence of events, which I am not able to discern and understand as a lawyer who has practised for over 25years, an application for review of our order of stay was issued to us on 19th May, 2022. We also have an application to set aside those orders, which was filed by the National Assembly on 25th May, 2022. In a supersonic speed, the Supreme Court ordered parties to file responses and submissions. Our advocates appeared before the Supreme Court in the morning of 3rd June and by afternoon, our orders were vacated. That means we have gone back to the situation that was prevailing before we went to the High Court, where the Speaker of the"
}