Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 287836,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/287836/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 261,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Mr. Mbadi",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 110,
        "legal_name": "John Mbadi Ng'ong'o",
        "slug": "john-mbadi"
    },
    "content": "On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, Sir. I am happy with the assurance of the Attorney-General that some of the issues that were raised with regard to constitutionality maybe handled at a later stage; I guess at the Committee stage. But I am at a loss and need direction from the Chair. If issues of constitutionality are raised, are we, as a House, supposed to continue debate on a matter that already substantive issues have been raised? The issue with regard to amendments to the National Assembly Remuneration Act has come up, but there are two other fundamental issues of constitutionality in this Bill. One of them is with regard to the proposed amendments to the Elections Act, 2011; that is, Section 112(2) (b), which proposes that any election held before the first election for Parliament, under the Constitution, shall be held in accordance with the provisions of the former Constitution. This is trying to revive or reintroduce a Commission that was repealed in 2010. That would be unconstitutional to me. There is also the issue of the National Cohesion and Integration Act proposed amendment that the President can appoint through gazettement in the case of re-appointment. The tradition of this House, if we recollect the case of the former Kenya Anti-Corruption Commission Chair, the re-appointment had to follow the process that the initial appointment followed. Mr. Speaker, Sir, I am raising this on two major grounds. If this particular Bill contains provisions or proposed amendments which ordinarily would be considered unconstitutional, are we supposed to proceed with the debate and even go ahead and take a vote at the Second Reading before we go to the Committee just with a promise that this will be taken care of when we come to the Committee Stage? My second comment is that there are very substantive issues being canvassed in this Bill which require, according to the Constitution, public participation. Introducing such amendments in the form of a Miscellaneous Amendment Bill would deny the people of Kenya their right to participate in legislation. Finally, I have just heard the Attorney-General say that this Bill will go to the Departmental Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. If you look at the proposed amendments in this Bill, you will see that they touch, almost, on all Ministries. What would be the basis of committing this Bill to the Departmental Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs and yet there are issues of finance and health? All Ministries are touched. In a nutshell, I am seeking the Chair’s directions as to whether we can proceed to debate this Bill in its present form just because we have been assured that at some stage, steps will be taken to correct concerns that we have with regard to constitutionality."
}