HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept
{
"id": 194010,
"url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/194010/?format=api",
"text_counter": 110,
"type": "speech",
"speaker_name": "Mr. Abdikadir",
"speaker_title": "",
"speaker": {
"id": 1,
"legal_name": "Abdikadir Hussein Mohamed",
"slug": "abdikadir-mohammed"
},
"content": "Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support this Motion wholeheartedly. In setting the infrastructure of the State, the Constitution envisaged that Parliament would be the driving seat because this is a Republic and not a monarchy. The way things have been, everything was done by an Executive that acted more like a monarchy. It is time Parliament took its position and actually took back the driver's seat. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, Ministers are part of the Executive. My learned colleague, Mr. Aluoch Olago talked about \"shall\". The word \"shall\" is meant to oppose \"may\" and is supposed to be stronger than \"must\". Therefore, when the Constitution talks about \"shall\" it means that something has to be done that way. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, with your permission, let me read out Section 16 of the Constitution. Other than the term \"shall\", I would like to draw the attention of hon. Members to the phrase \"subject to\". Section 16 of the Constitution says:- \"There shall be such offices of Minister of the Government of Kenya as may be established by Parliament or, subject to any provisions made by Parliament, by the President.\" Since Independence, the President has been using the part that says \"or subject to any provisions made by the President\". In other words, even when Parliament has not checked, the functions and setting up of establishment should have been subject to Parliament's approval. This has not been happening. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, to add to that, Section 23 gives the executive authority of the State to the President. However, Sub section 2 says:- \"Nothing in this section shall prevent Parliament from conferring functions on persons or authorities other than the President.\" In other words, this section allows Parliament - even when we were setting up the Office of the Prime Minister - without recourse to the Executive, to go ahead and do so. Now, for Ministers, we most, certainly, must do so. That means their establishment in terms of number and functions as to what they are supposed to do. So, I think it is time for Parliament to take back the driver's seat in this regard. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, in the theory on separation of powers, the law establishes - because the law is king in our Republic - the functions of the State. There should be separation of powers, so that each arm of the Government can go ahead and do its work. A couple of days ago, when Ministers and Permanent Secretaries attended a conference, I heard the Right Hon. Prime Minister say that the Judiciary should be loyal to the Executive or the Judiciary should be loyal to May 14, 2008 PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES 1011 the Government of the day. That, most certainly, is not how it is supposed to be. Since the Right Hon. Prime Minister said that the Back-benchers in this House should be checking the Government, we will certainly do so. We need to tell him that, certainly, the Judicature must not be loyal to the Executive of any day, leave alone the Executive of the day. The historical subjugation of Parliament is what has brought us to this level. Since the last Parliament, Parliament has been seeking self-determination. It is only when Parliament gets complete independence that hon. Members of this House can then serve their constituencies properly. With those few remarks, I wholeheartedly support the Motion."
}