Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1395069,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1395069/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 303,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Funyula, ODM",
    "speaker_title": "Hon. (Dr) Ojiambo Oundo",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": " Thank you, Hon. Temporary Speaker. I rise to support the proposed amendments to the Statutory Instruments (Amendment) Bill, (National Assembly Bill No.3 of 2024). This Bill has been long overdue. I sat in the Committee on Delegated Legislation in the last Parliament, and we grappled with this issue for many years. Firstly, preparing statutory instruments is a lengthy and costly process. The requirement that statutory instruments should lapse after 10 years was becoming extremely expensive and onerous on statutory instruments-making authorities. This is what probably informed the decision to amend Section 27 of the Act as contained in Clause7 of this particular Bill. As my colleagues have clearly put it, if an Act is still in existence, why would the regulations be amended? This should not be the case unless there are material facts that have emerged in the implementation of the Act that require to be amended. Therefore, we should give room to the existing statutory instruments. They should remain in operation until the regulatory making authority finds it necessary to make the amendments. I am a bit uncomfortable with the provisions of Clause 3. I would probably require further understanding on that. It provides that Section 12 of the Principal Act is amended by deleting Sub-section (3). Sub-section (3) deals with the provisions of Sub-section (1) which says: “Shall not apply to any rules, regulations and orders emanating from a court of competent jurisdiction in Kenya’’. The import of deleting that particular clause is that any rules and regulations affecting the conduct of court process will be subject to the Statutory Instrument Act. That was never the spirit because the courts of law are independent as provided for in the Constitution. Therefore, unless there is any other explanation, we should tread carefully not to impugn on the independence of the Judiciary. That is what I want to challenge. I want to take it back to the Departmental Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs and the Committee on Delegated Legislation to have a sober reflection on the same. We could be treading on dangerous grounds. Hon. Temporary Speaker, I think this is the opportune time to relook at the regulatory- making process. When the regulations come to the National Assembly, they are only annulled on two or three accounts. Firstly, was there adequate public participation? If there was none, they stand annulled automatically. Secondly, was there a regulatory memorandum? If it was not there, they stand annulled. However, as the law stands, the Committee has no powers to amend, review or make suggestions to the published statutory instrument unless it is done at 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"
}