Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1554842,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1554842/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 306,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Rarieda, ODM",
    "speaker_title": "Hon. (Dr) Otiende Amollo",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": " Thank you, Hon. Speaker. I wish to support the request by the Leader of the Minority Party. Even as we communicate, I am sure you will indicate that, this House's Caucus on legislation, litigation, and related matters was seized of this matter upon your convention, and that the matter was referred to the Caucus for consideration. That notwithstanding, it is still possible for you to issue a communication on the decision of the Supreme Court. It is quite direct and specific on the legislation that was brought and challenged. It might be indicative and could guide the House moving forward. The initial confusion had been caused somewhere around 2013 when an advisory opinion had been sought from the Supreme Court, and it made a statement that sweepingly, suggested that virtually every legislation must concern a county. That created confusion that has lasted almost ten years. It is very good that the Supreme Court finally clarified that not every piece of legislation must go to the Senate because not every piece of legislation concerns counties. I would support a communication to that effect because it would help. Importantly, and this is for the interest of this House. The Supreme Court addressed itself to the NG-CDF Act, 2015, which was part of the legislations that were challenged on the basis that they were not considered by the Senate. The Supreme Court was very clear that the Act did not have to be passed by the Senate. To that extent, it is not unconstitutional. It has direct relevance to the matters we are litigating. I will not talk about their merits, but it is important to note. Many people had thought that the Supreme Court pronounced itself on the NG-CDF Act as amended in 2022 and declared it unconstitutional, not knowing that the only pronouncement that was made was on the initial CDF Act that existed in 2013. This information is helpful because it is educative to Kenyans. It is also helpful to judicial officers considering the matter. They should know that it is not true that the current NG-CDF Act was ever declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. With that, Hon. Speaker, I support the idea of a communication. Thank you."
}