Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1551087,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1551087/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 409,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Tharaka, UDA",
    "speaker_title": "Hon. George Murugara",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "and misconceived arguments which they made in court and which were lost. When the drafters of the Constitution came up with what we have, and which we passed in 2010, they had in mind a bicameral Parliament that was to work seamlessly and was to be guided by distinct mandates of each House. This is why it took time to make provisions on what the National Assembly would do and what the Senate would do in turn. We also have the Fourth Schedule where it is clearly defined what which House is supposed to do the functions are clearly demarcated between the national Government and those of county governments. Therefore, I wonder why anyone would ignore these very well thought out constitutional provisions and waste six years in courts battling what should go to the Senate and what should not go to there. Having carefully read the judgement of the Supreme Court and having looked at Paragraph 95, which is in black and white, it now goes unquestioned where the concurrence process should be sought. Having looked at this and the proposed amendments, we are left with no option, but to urge this House to reject them. We oppose this Motion and let everything from the Senate fall by the wayside. We will go for mediation after that and we will demonstrate to the Senate what exactly the Constitution says and what exactly we painstakingly went through when we were coming up with the report on the Bicameral Relations Bill which Hon. Chepkonga had taken pain to draft and urge it through this House to success. As I conclude, let me take the House through what the Senate is proposing. As regards Clause 6, the Senate proposes the following: To delete the entire Clause 6 and substitute therefor the following new clause: Clause 6 (i) says that before a Bill is Read for the First Time in the House originating the Bill, the Speaker of that House shall, pursuant to Article 110(3) of the Constitution, invite the Speaker of the other House to jointly resolve any question as to whether it is a Bill concerning counties and, if it is, whether it is a special or an ordinary Bill. What the Senate is proposing is that before any Bill is read in this House, first and foremost, the two Speakers must burn the midnight oil, spend time and expend national resources to sort out whether a Bill concerns counties or not. It is clear to this House that there are Bills which have nothing to do with counties and the Senate. Therefore, the Senate should not call us to waste our time, resources and energy debating on whether a Bill concerns a county or not. This is a bad proposal which must be rejected. If I had more time, I would have gone through the entire proposed amendments from the Senate on this Bill. None of them qualifies to be considered by this House. With those very many remarks, I beg to second the rejection of the amendments from the Senate, and the rejection of this Motion."
}