GET /api/v0.1/hansard/entries/256133/?format=api
HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept
{
"id": 256133,
"url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/256133/?format=api",
"text_counter": 201,
"type": "speech",
"speaker_name": "Mr. Speaker",
"speaker_title": "",
"speaker": null,
"content": "Order, hon. Members! It is very nice to listen to such a passionate speech for a change. A lot of our speeches have not had passion, and I congratulate Mr. Kenyatta for the very passionate way in which he has articulated his position. However, the passion not withstanding, the problem we now have in relation to appointment of Ministers from outside your party was made possible by your own party. Before you came to this House, and Dr. Godana will agree with me, and I demand intellectual honesty, before the General Election of 1992 there were several constitutional amendments. The first one created multipartism. The second one, a very clear provision in the Constitution, provided that the President shall appoint Ministers from only his own party. 28 PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES 22 March, 2006 That was the Constitution that got us into the multiparty situation in 1992. That situation continued until 1997. The House, with the support of your party, under the Interparties Parliamentary Group (IPPG), deleted that provision and put the current provision, which provides that the President may appoint any hon. Member of the House to the Cabinet in consultation, I believe, with other parties. That is the current position. Now, what happens is, if you consult as parties, the Speaker, is absent from your consultations. I am not a party to party consultations. Now, you complain, maybe rightly, because I have seen your letter, that you were not consulted when your hon. Members were taken away from you to the Government. The issue would then be, were there consultations or not? That will require evidence. I believe it is a triable issue. It is an issue that you have taken to court for constitutional interpretation. That matter is still pending in court. Under our law, there is separation of powers. Parliament makes laws, and the courts interpret the laws, including the Constitution. The Speaker's job is not to interpret the Constitution. That is the business of the courts. I am as worried as you are. In fact, I would like to say to this House that I am absolutely worried about the direction to which we are directing our parliamentary practice. I said this in my speech yesterday; you should discipline your Members. Why should they disobey you and move to the other side?"
}