Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 274161,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/274161/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 623,
    "type": "other",
    "speaker_name": "",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "constitutionality of Clause 30 (2) (i) or the unconstitutionality of it; which indicates and says:- “Among the functions of the Governor, subject to the operational command, structures set out in the National Police Service Act or any other national security legislation will chair the county equivalent of the National Security Council as provided for in Article 239(5) of the Constitution”. The President proceeds and says that this is contrary to Chapter 14 of the Constitution which places the National Security Council under the National Government and not the county government. He argues out his authority in Part II of the Fourth Schedule. Indeed, certain provisions of Part II of the Fourth Schedule have its own division of functions. It says:- “Distribution of functions between the National Government and County Governments---“ It sets out all this and then proceeds on and gives all that. That basically is the argument on the part of the President as well as the many Members who have come out here into the open. It goes on and on. On the part of Mr. Imanyara et al, it is that Standing Order No.47 (iii) is very categorical. It says:- “If the Speaker is of the opinion that any proposed Motion is contrary to the Constitution without expressly proposing appropriate amendments of the Constitution, then the Speaker may direct that the Motion is inadmissible or that notice of it cannot be given without such alterations as the Speaker may approve”. Clearly, the practice is that when a Motion that is before the House is in the opinion of the Speaker unconstitutional, then even debating that itself is not allowed. However, the issue on both sides is elaborate. Mr. Imanyara says that Article 174 (h) of the promulgated Constitution says:- “Objects of the devolution of Government are; to facilitate decentralization of State organs, their functions and services from the capital of Kenya---“ It proceeds and says: “To enhance checks and balances and separation of powers”. The Chair has taken cognizance of all the arguments that were advanced both for and against this matter. The Chair is also conscious of the fact that this is a weighty matter. It is a matter that essentially the Chair would want to meditate about and reflect about and give a comprehensive communication from the Chair to give the way forward. Consequently, as per our practice, I can only ask the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Local Government whose line Ministry is basically concerned with this Bill to report progress."
}