Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1425307,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1425307/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 244,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Sen. Sifuna",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 13599,
        "legal_name": "Sifuna Edwin Watenya",
        "slug": "sifuna-edwin-watenya"
    },
    "content": "Mr. Temporary Speaker, Sir, if you look at the HANSARD, we in the Minority side during debate on the Housing Bill, were of the opinion that housing is a devolved function and it is the legislative mandate of this House to deal with questions of housing. Moreover, we needed to subject that Bill to our own independent public participation to find out the views of Kenyans. The word of caution results from the fact that previously we have seen very shambolic public participations before the National Assembly. In fact, one of our biggest shames as a nation was where public participation was conducted on The Finance Bill 2023 in the National Assembly and 99 per cent of the people who appeared before the relevant committee opposed its provisions. However, in the end, all the proposals and suggestions from ordinary Kenyans; the Kenya Association of Manufacturers (KAM), the civil society and other quarters, were ignored. The Bill was passed anyway. We hear that leaders from the National Assembly pronounce themselves at funerals and other public events that Bills will be passed and not even a coma shall be amended. I am happy that given the noise we made, especially as members of the opposition or Minority side in this House, I am now seeing stories in the newspapers that Members of the National Assembly are insisting on being taken through provisions of Bills before they vote. That is progress although we have set ourselves an extremely low bar, where a Member of Parliament (MP) can admit to passing a Bill without reading it. We are now making progress. By the time we get to the 2027 election, we might have a different story. The courts have spoken on this matter of public participation; that it cannot be a cosmetic exercise of checking boxes and saying that we have complied with the law on public participation. It has to be substantial and the views of the people must reflect in the final document. As a House, together with the National Assembly, we can never avail ourselves of power to do away with the views of the people on any particular legislation. There is a very interesting provision under Clause 20 (5) and (6) of the Bill. Allow me to just read it out verbatim because I believe this is meant to intimidate professional staff of the Senate and the National Assembly from actually advising this House to avail itself with the option of going to court whenever there is a matter we believe is not right. We have enough matters in court to prove that it is also an option that is available to us as a House. Although we are the lawmakers in the land, injustice can also be visited on us, especially as the Senate. Clause 20(5) states- “If a court is satisfied that a House of Parliament, in an attempt to resolve a dispute, has not exhausted all the mechanisms of alternative disputes resolution as contemplated under this Section, and refers the dispute back for the reason that the House of Parliament has not complied with this Section, the expenditure"
}