Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1213787,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1213787/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 158,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Homa Bay Town, ODM",
    "speaker_title": "Hon. Peter Kaluma",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": " Thank you, Hon. Temporary Speaker. I stand to oppose the recommendations by the Committee on Delegated Legislation to nullify this illegal statutory instrument. We call them delegated legislations because the authority to legislate is vested in this House and not in anybody outside there. I can confirm that Article 94 of the Constitution says that nobody, no entity and no authority can make any provision having the force of law other than Parliament. So, Parliament delegates to Cabinet Secretaries and other State officers the authority of making subsidiary legislations in the form of regulations but we continue to check whether the power to legislate that has been donated is being applied properly. Parliament does this through the Committee on Delegated Legislation. So, to that extent, the Committee is right to bring its Report before this House recommending nullification or approval of the regulations. My problem, having looked at these regulations, is that there is a bare recommendation for nullification without clearly pointing out to the House what provisions of the draft regulations are inconsistent with provisions of the Constitution, the Act of Parliament or public policy position. We are barely being told that the regulatory-making authority sat and confirmed before the Committee that they did public participation. I have read the Report well and some people have said they appeared but their views were not taken into account. That does not take away the fact that public participation was done. In any event, what law defines to what extent the regulatory-making authority should engage in public participation? So, as a House, we cannot just say we are agreeing with the Committee even though very rarely should we go against a Report of a Committee. Without clear reasons, we should reject such report because we do not know what informs the recommendations by the Committee. What if it is just being rejected because it was brought by a previous regime? They are just nullifying without clear reasons. We may have a situation where the same regulations are brought again. So, this should be made clear. I am saying this because I am a founding Member of the Committee on Delegated Legislation."
}