Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1342234,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1342234/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 133,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Mathare, ODM",
    "speaker_title": "Hon. Anthony Oluoch",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "I have heard the distinguished Chairperson, Hon. Chepkonga, say that the Committee on Delegated Legislation brings regulations for annulment only as a last resort. They only bring them for annulment after begging the Cabinet Secretary to amend them. That is very absurd. I do not say that it is absurd because I disagree with the Chairperson; it is so because under Article 94(5) of the Constitution, we are the law-making organ and yet, we have to beg a Cabinet Secretary to relook at the regulations and bring them back in an acceptable format. For this reason, the Statutory Instruments Act and our Standing Orders need to be looked into. Hon. Owen Baya and I sit on the Procedure and House Rules Committee. The Deputy Speaker who has just vacated the Chair chairs that Committee. The Committee has accepted my recommendation to amend the Statutory Instruments Act and our Standing Orders to require that all positive or negative regulations find their way to this House by way of a report so that the House can stamp its authority on whether they should proceed or not. That is the only way we can affirm our role under Articles 94(5) and 95 of the Constitution. Hon. Temporary Speaker, I also say this in light of the provisions of the Constitution, which I hope we will be able to relook into at some point. Under Article 115(7) of the Constitution… Hon. Otiende Amollo was there, and he will give us the benefit of what was the reasoning. We allowed the President to make law and act as a lawmaker through the back door by allowing what you call Presidential Reservations. So, when we cannot raise the two-thirds requisite as a House to disagree with the President, that provision becomes law. It should be the other way round; when we pass a law, the President should raise two-thirds to disagree with us. That is when we will exercise the supremacy of this House. We borrowed the model of the United States of America (USA) Presidential System, which has said time without number... I want to quote the United States Supreme Court on Clinton versus New York, where it said, ''line veto amendment is unconstitutional.'’ You cannot allow part reservations or line amendments of the law we have made…"
}