Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 125092,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/125092/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 463,
    "type": "other",
    "speaker_name": "",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "The procedure is three-tiered. We have an institution called the Advisory Board. This is the who is who of the professional institutions in this country. Currently, the Chairman of the Law Society of Kenya serves on that board. The Chairperson of FIDA, Kenya, serves on that board. The Chief Executive of the Federation of Kenya Employees serves on that board. The KMA serves on that board. The who is who of all the institutions that we look up to as far as professionalism is concerned serve in that board. These people are not busybodies. They are the ones to vet and recommend. In terms of re-appointment, they are the ones to appraise. It is not for the Minister of Justice, National Cohesion and Constitutional Affairs to appraise. In fact, the Minister appears nowhere in that chain. It is up to them to appraise and recommend to this House. The duty of this House is not subject to anyone. It is an original duty to this House; a legal duty to have a role in this process. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, if the advisory board comes to a Committee of this House and says: “We are of the view that the law was not followed and we need your assistance” what do we say? “Please, go to the courts, our hands are tied.” No. This House must provide answers. When there is an original duty on this House to play a role in that process, what do we say, that we will sit back and leave that role to go away so that the courts can interpret the law? The law is very clear. The view is not just for the Advisory Board. It is the same view of the LSK, the International Commission of Jurists, FIDA and any other serious institution that deals with the law. Unfortunately, it is not the view of the Minister for Justice, National Cohesion and Constitutional Affairs or the Attorney-General. We are not surprised as a Committee about those views. They are, however, a minority view. Having come to that conclusion, the proposal from the Committee was intervention in two ways: one, was on the process of the Appropriations Bill. Two, was the issue of subsidiary legislation. A gazette notice is not a page from the Holy Bible or the Holy Quran. Where does it get its authority? Why does the Minister not just put a notice in any of the newspapers? In fact, newspapers have larger circulation. If it is just a matter of giving notice, why do you not do it in any of the newspapers? Why do you have to do it in the Kenya Gazette ? Why? Because it has some force of law. When the Gazette Notice is dealing with supplementary Bills, it is an instrument of law. That is where it gets its force. That law does not come from the Executive. It is subsidiary legislation. When that instrumentality uses powers conferred by this House through subsidiary legislation which is the gazette notice - a notice is very clear in the definition of Gazette Notice, irrespective of what you will be told, this is subsidiary legislation. This House has primary responsibility of supervising subsidiary legislation. That is why we have a Committee of Parliament that has no other role other than supervision of subsidiary legislation. And yes, this House has the powers to annul. In fact, nobody has better powers to annul. Not even the courts! Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, as far as the Appropriations Bill is concerned, in 1848 the Americans went to war with Mexico. This war is what led California, Arizona, Utah and many States in west to come to the United States of America (USA). One congress man from Pennsylvania had this amendment attached to the Appropriations Bill. It read:-"
}