Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1551096,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1551096/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 418,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Kikuyu, UDA",
    "speaker_title": "Hon. Kimani Ichung’wah",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "through a painful six-year period. Many of us have agonised over those years on why we fight in court with the Senate. We have had many court cases, even in the last Parliament. I am lucky that when the 23 Acts of Parliament were passed, I was a Member of this House. Through the agonising six years, many Members of this House almost gave up. Members often questioned the House leadership and the Speaker of the House on the need to keep fighting in court. Some Members suggested that we re-enact the laws and send them to the Senate. However, many of us believe in the position espoused in our Constitution, that, as much as we have a bicameral Parliament, there are specific functions and responsibilities for each House. The Constitution is clear on which Bills should go to the Senate and which ones need not go. That is why I take this opportunity to celebrate the Supreme Court judges and this House for staying true to the provisions of our Constitution. We refer Bills to the other House not out of benevolence or pity in order to please people in the other House, or because we are unable to enact laws. We refer Bills that ought to be referred to the other House because these are the dictates of the Constitution. We do not refer to the other House Bills that should not because the Constitution dictates. For instance, I must mention matters that touch on money Bills because I know we are in a mediation process over the National Lottery Bill. I saw the Senate attempting to bring in amendments that touch on taxation. Those matters are clearly not under the purview of the Senate, as provided for in our Constitution. I take this opportunity to remind the Chair of the Departmental Committee on Finance and National Planning and the Chair of the Departmental Committee on Sports and Culture, who are leading the Mediation Committee between us and the Senate, that nothing touching taxation and administration of tax should be considered in the Senate amendments. That was a disingenuous way of the Senate trying to participate in tax matters by introducing amendments to a National Assembly Bill. The Senate is introducing amendments that touch on tax administration matters so that we go into mediation and start haggling over those matters. The Supreme Court has set the record straight. Many Members despaired along the way over the past six years. As painful as it has been, we have learnt our lesson regarding how not to resolve bicameral disputes. For six years, immense public resources have been spent on paying lawyers. Immense time of our officers in the National Assembly and the Senate has been spent. That is at a time when our internal lawyers and public officers who work in Parliament would have been doing other meaningful things. They spent time fighting disputes in court over a matter that would have been resolved within Parliament without ever having to go to court. Let me conclude by saying that the Supreme Court ruling is a win-win situation. It is a win for Parliament as a whole. Both Houses have now been reminded of their constitutional responsibilities and the limits of their respective mandates. It is now clear where our mandates begin and end. It is now time for both Houses to discharge their responsibilities and observe their constitutional limits diligently without haggling or throwing words at each other. When I began, I said this is a win-win situation for Parliament and a win for the Constitution of Kenya that created all public institutions, the Supreme Court and the two Houses of Parliament included. Many of the amendments that the Senate proposed to this Bill have been spent because the Supreme Court judgment has dealt with them in great detail. Those who have taken time to read the judgment will see that the Supreme Court judges took much of their time considering all the issues. Therefore, time events that include the judgment overtake many amendments. We should not be taken back to Egypt. Let us get out of Egypt and cross the Mediterranean Sea by agreeing with the Committee to reject all those amendments, as the Chairperson said."
}