GET /api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1425325/?format=api
HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept
{
"id": 1425325,
"url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1425325/?format=api",
"text_counter": 262,
"type": "speech",
"speaker_name": "Sen. Osotsi",
"speaker_title": "",
"speaker": {
"id": 13588,
"legal_name": "Osotsi Godfrey Otieno",
"slug": "osotsi-godfrey-otieno"
},
"content": "What is that? The courts have already ruled on this matter. Public participation should not be cosmetic, but be done adequately. However, in this clause, those who like rushing Bills through will now be able to rush through Bills without adequate public participation. Then it goes ahead and hides behind duplication to deny the other House an opportunity to conduct adequate participation on a Bill. Clause 19(7)(viii) talks about the validity of the Bills which are processed by these Houses. Again, this section is unconstitutional. It says- “A committee of Parliament shall consider the views received from public participation broadly.” This means that the specific views received from the public will not be given adequate attention. This law will facilitate that. Clause 19(8) says- “An Act of Parliament is not invalid on account of failure to incorporate any views submitted during public participation.” You have seen the National Assembly go to the public, 90 per cent of the views that are given by the public are never implemented in the final Bill that is passed. One case is the Finance Bill and the Housing Bill. All the things that the public said were never factored in the final Bill that was passed by that House. This Bill is trying to introduce other provisions using bicameralism to make it easy for the other House to pass Bills without being questioned in a court of law as to the adequacy of those Bills in terms of public participation. Clause 20(1) of the Bill says- “Before formally declaring the existence of a dispute between the Houses of Parliament, the Houses of Parliament shall in good faith make every reasonable effort and take all the necessary steps to amicably resolve the matter by initiating direct negotiations with each other or through an intermediary.” This is stopping either House from taking any other measures like going to court on a matter. We shall not be able to take our disputes to court when we are required to do so as it has been done in the past. Generally, this Bill is unconstitutional. It goes against the tenets of bicameralism that is not known globally and it should not even be passed by this House at this stage of the Second Reading. This Bill should be rejected in totality. This Bill is another attempt at killing devolution in this country. We know that the House that has been persistently used to kill devolution is the National Assembly. Everything they do, even the way they behave on the ground in the management of rural roads in our counties. The National Assembly is an existential threat to devolution in this country. We thought that now that we have a Speaker who has been a Senator, things will be different. I am concerned that, in fact, under Speaker Wetangula, the National Assembly has become a very serious threat to devolution. I served in the National Assembly under the current Attorney General (AG), who was against devolution, but not to the extent of the current Speaker. He has basically demonstrated that he cannot---"
}