Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1551083,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1551083/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 405,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Ainabkoi, UDA",
    "speaker_title": "Hon. Samwel Chepkonga",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "of Government. We should resolve our issues that are of interest to Kenyans. This is completely out of order. This Bill seeks to resolve these issues. The Departmental Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs considered the Senate amendments, and proposed to reject them. I will request Hon. Murugara to second this particular Motion. He will give the reasons for proposing the rejection. I have gone through the Report which is very succinct and cogent in the reasons they have provided for the rejection of the proposed amendments to the Bill that was approved by the House. I am in complete agreement with that Report. So that we do not spend a lot of time, I will truncate to what I consider to be very important. There is a recent decision by the Supreme Court, arising from an appeal from the Court of Appeal by the Senate. The Senate had sued the National Assembly on a number of Bills that had been passed by this House, without referring them to the Senate. We considered that they were Bills that had nothing to do with the county governments. They took us to the High Court in the first instance which invalidated 23 Acts of Parliament that had been passed by this House. The Court of Appeal similarly attempted to invalidate those legislations. However, when the appeal was taken to the Supreme Court, in its decision and finding, it found that 21 Acts of Parliament had nothing to do with the Senate, including the National Government Constituencies Development Fund (NG-CDF). They found these particular legislations to be within the remit of the National Assembly. The various orders that were sought by the Senate were all summarily dismissed. For the avoidance of doubt, the orders that were sought by the Senate were dismissed by the Supreme Court. The Senate sought that a mandatory injunction be issued against the National Assembly from considering Bills that touch on counties and have not been referred to the National Assembly. Secondly, they sought to invalidate 21 Acts of Parliament to be unconstitutional. The Supreme Court found that 21 Acts of Parliament were indeed constitutional. They rejected that particular request by the Senate. The Supreme Court also found that the Senate had no role in the origination, consideration and enactment of money Bills as per Article 110 of the Constitution. They also found that the National Assembly has the exclusive role in the origination, consideration and enactment of money Bills. Finally, this was the order of the Supreme Court: the constitutionality of the Parliamentary Service Act was not an issue and could not, therefore, be considered by the Supreme Court. That was left for determination by the High Court. The findings of the Supreme Court, which I have just mentioned, are, therefore, critical to the consideration of the Senate amendments that have been proposed to this House. They run afoul and are completely in contravention of the finding and decision of the Supreme Court. I wish to laud the Supreme Court for the stoic decision and guidance that they have given in finality, and setting the record straight in ensuring that there is harmonious relationship between the two Houses. In conclusion, recently, we passed a request from the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) selection panel where they had sought for an extension of 14 days. This House passed that request. When it was taken to the Senate, they questioned the manner in which that proposal was sent to this House. In fact, they said that the Speaker of this House ought not to have received it, and forwarded it to the House. This request was made to the Speaker in his capacity as the Chairman of the Parliamentary Service Commission. To question the law which both Houses passed is a zero-sum game and argument by the Senate. It seeks to impede the character of the Speaker. In fact, I am seeking to impeach the character of the Speaker. I found it to be completely out of tune by throwing tantrums that are completely unnecessary. In fact, the Mover of that particular request, my very good friend Sen. Khalwale, said he did not even know why he was 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."
}