Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 370740,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/370740/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 209,
    "type": "other",
    "speaker_name": "",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "“not dead”. This, therefore, calls for a holistic and not segregatory look at the provisions of Article 110 of the Constitution. To argue that no House can proceed on a Bill without the joint resolution of the two Speakers is tantamount to arguing that one House can decide to sabotage the constitutional obligations of the other House and, therefore, precipitate a constitutional stalemate in the performance of the legislative role of Parliament. It is further tantamount to contending that the provisions relating to the roles of the two Houses as set out in Part I of Chapter Eight of the Constitution and procedure for the exercise of the legislative powers set out in Article 109(2), (3) and (5) were provisions written into the Constitution but with desire that these provisions should have no legal effect. Indeed, it is tantamount to contending that Article 259 of the Constitution has no effect and certain Articles of the Constitution can be assumed to be “dead” and without life and that the interpretation that favours that the law is not speaking is allowed by the Constitution. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Hon. Members it is my considered opinion that Article 110(3) of the Constitution only contemplates a joint resolution of the two Speakers only when a question arises as to whether it is a Bill concerning counties or whether it is a Special Bill or an Ordinary Bill. Where there is no question arising there is, indeed, no requirement for a joint resolution of the two Speakers. The big question in the eyes of the Constitution is: How then does a question arise? The issue of how a question arises is a matter of law rather than facts. The Constitution has in its wisdom categorized Governments in two levels, that is, the national Government served by the national legislature (Parliament) and the county government which is served by the county legislatures (county assemblies). The Constitution further contemplates a different procedure for enactment of legislation relating to both levels of Government. Article 109(3) of the Constitution provides that a Bill not concerning county government is considered only in the National Assembly and passed in accordance with Article 122 of the Standing Orders of the Assembly. Article 109(4) provides that a Bill concerning county government may originate in the National Assembly or the Senate and is passed in accordance with Articles 110 to 113 and Articles 122 and 123 and the Standing Orders of the Houses. Article 110(1) defines a Bill concerning county government to mean: “(a) a Bill containing provisions affecting the functions and powers of the county governments set out in the Fourth Schedule. (b) a Bill relating to the election of members of a county assembly or county executive; and (c) a Bill referred to in Chapter Twelve affecting the finances of county governments.” What then is a Bill concerning county governments in the real sense of this Article? Firstly it is important to note the use of the word “and” at the end of paragraph (b) of Article 110(1) which is not, in my view, accidental. I put the emphasis on the word “and”. It, therefore, follows that for a Bill to meet the criteria to be qualified as a Bill concerning county governments, that Bill must meet the three ingredients specified in paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of Article 110(1) at the same time. Secondly and more importantly, Article 110(1) (a) requires that the Bill must have provisions affecting the functions and powers of the county governments set out in the Fourth Schedule to the Constitution. In order to fully appreciate the import of this sub-"
}