Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1425251,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1425251/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 188,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Sen. Wakili Sigei",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "This means the Bill, first of all, will have already been published by the time such consideration is given in accordance with section 4 of this Act. “A Speaker may subject to Section 7 and at any time before the period specified for the second reading---\" That is very critical because what the Bill is saying is that you can consider a Bill regardless of whether there is a question as to whether it affects counties or not. It can only become a question after the Second Reading stage. In this case, it only becomes something that the Speaker can now be referred to have been seized of a question. We are saying that particular interpretation under this provision of Sub-clause (6) (2) is completely and fundamentally different from what the Constitution under Article 110(3) says. On that basis alone, we are saying this Bill has taken away the mandate of this House without considering the fact that the Bill in itself ought to have enhanced the relationship between the Houses to ensure that the legislative mandates of the two Houses and as per the Constitution is supported to be as broad and as inclusive as it should be. Another very peculiar provision is the clause that provides under Clause 11. This is on conciliation in the event of a disagreement. Remember earlier on in this House, you gave communication on formation of a mediation committee because of the disagreement that arose out of the Division of Revenue Bill. This Act is stating that it does not matter where there is disagreement. The wording of it is “Where the Houses of Parliament are unable to reach a joint resolution on a question after invoking the provisions of sub-section 1, the originating House may proceed with the consideration of the Bill, notwithstanding the disagreement.” That particular proposal is making nonsense of the mediation process because the House, or rather the Speaker, can decide to say, “it does not matter the fact that we are supposed to go for mediation, we will proceed to consider the Bill notwithstanding that existing disagreement.” That is one of the reasons why the committee felt that instead of curing the lacuna that is in law, the Bill seeks to disregard the role of one of the Houses; either this House or the other. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, when we have such a provision being put in law, it plays completely contrary to the provisions of Article 96 that gives this House an unfettered role and mandate to protect the Counties. As it is framed, the Bill generally violates the provisions of the Constitution that derogates in terms of judicial pronouncements. You recall that we have had cases all the way to the Supreme Court with some of them pending. As a matter of fact, the cases have been suspended for the sake of facilitating negotiations in the two Houses. When the National Assembly passes this Bill; it is a direct indictment on the fact that the two Houses had desired to resolve the disputes which are before the court. In essence, the position that has been taken by the National Assembly to pass this Bill is a direct indictment on the pending cases on the goodwill that this House had and the goodwill that the leadership of this House had in considering an accommodation of negotiations prior to the cases being resolved by the court."
}