Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1551086,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1551086/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 408,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Tharaka, UDA",
    "speaker_title": "Hon. George Murugara",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": " Hon. Temporary Speaker, I beg to second this Motion. I advise the House that when the vote is called, we will be rejecting the Motion that the proposed amendments by the Senate should not be considered such that those amendments will actually be lost and the Motion will also be lost. I must start by stating that I have read the judgement of the Supreme Court delivered on 21st March 2025 while we were away on a short recess. Allow me, Hon. Temporary Speaker, to laud the Supreme Court for having resolved a dispute that had dragged for six years between the two Houses of Parliament. This was an excellent piece of work from the Supreme Court and they deserve a pat on the back for having resolved this and having clearly stated what should go to the Senate and what should not go to the Senate. It is unfortunate that for six years, there was a duel in the courts between the National Assembly and the Senate on the interpretation of Article 110(3) of the Constitution which requires the two Houses to resolve any question whether a Bill concerns county governments or not. From this particular decision, it was most bizarre that the interpretation by the Senate was that all Bills have to be taken to the Senate even Bills that have nothing to do and have no single provision concerning county governments. This is what they are trying to do again. We will show with the intended proposed amendments by the Senate that they are actually going on the wrong tangent. This interpretation by the Senate was not only erroneous, but also ignored the existence of Article 109 of the Constitution which provides that Bills that do not concern county governments need not be considered by the Senate, but have to be considered only by this House. Therefore, this judgement is commendable in that it has settled the long dispute of six years and has clearly expressly provided what falls under Article 110(3) of the Constitution that it is only Bills that concern counties that possibly have questions arising to be determined by the two Speakers. Article 96 of the Constitution clearly states the mandate of the Senate, which is to represent and protect the interests of the counties especially in the matters legislation and matters Parliament. The legislative mandate of the Senate is limited to Bills concerning county governments and not all Bills as the Senate has tried to make us believe and was trying to make the courts to believe which was rejected by the courts. There are obvious Bills which must be taken to the Senate including money Bills. What we have in mind includes the Division of Revenue and County Allocation of Revenue Bills. Without saying, those ones go to the Senate. Where a question arises, the two Speakers have to resolve it. The Departmental Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs keenly scrutinised the amendments proposed by the Senate and having carefully looked at them, we call for their rejection. The reason is that the Senate indirectly tries to perpetuate an unconstitutional practise 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."
}