HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept
{
"id": 384796,
"url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/384796/?format=api",
"text_counter": 23,
"type": "other",
"speaker_name": "",
"speaker_title": "",
"speaker": null,
"content": "Sen. Murkomen, supporting Dr. Khalwale’s request for directions, observed that there was need for careful and consultative reflection on the matter so that if the Senate chose to proceed with the introduction and consideration of the County Allocation of Revenue Bill, 2013, then the Supreme Court would not interpret this as acquiescing to the actions of the National Assembly. For the record, hon. Senators, permit me to refresh your memory on how the present matter came to be. You will recall that:- The Division of Revenue Bill, National Assembly Bill No.1 of 2013, was published by the National Assembly on 29th April, 2013, as a Bill originating in the National Assembly. By a letter dated 3rd May, 2013, addressed to the Speaker of the Senate, the Speaker of the National Assembly forwarded a copy of the Bill to the Senate and observed in the letter that “by virtue of Standing Order 233(4) of the National Assembly Standing Orders and Standing Order 158(4) of the Senate Standing Orders, it would appear that both the National Assembly and the Senate have, in their own rules, already made a determination that the Division of Revenue Bill is, for purposes of Article 110(1)(c) and 2(b) of the Constitution, firstly a Bill concerning county governments and, secondly, an ordinary Bill. The question contemplated under Article 110(3) of the Constitution, therefore, need not arise in respect of the Bill. Pursuant to Article 110(3) of the Constitution and Standing Orders No.16 and 122 of the Senate and National Assembly respectively, by a letter dated 9th May, 2013, to the Speaker of the National Assembly, I concurred with the Speaker of the National Assembly that the Division of Revenue Bill, 2013, was a Bill concerning counties and further that it was an ordinary Bill within the meaning of Article 110(2) of the Constitution. By a letter dated 13th May, 2013, the Clerk of the National Assembly forwarded to the Clerk of the Senate the following documents:- (a) A certified copy of the Division of Revenue Bill, 2013, as passed by the National Assembly on 9th May, 2013, and; (b) A message from the National Assembly to the Senate duly signed by the Speaker of the National Assembly seeking the concurrence of the Senate to the Bill as passed by the National Assembly. Pursuant to Standing Order No.40(4), at the sitting of the Senate held on Tuesday, 14th May, 2013, I reported the message from the National Assembly to the Senate and at the morning sitting of the Senate held on Wednesday, 15th May, 2013, the Division of Revenue Bill was read a First Time in the Senate and committed to the Standing Committee on Finance, Commerce and Economic Affairs. The Bill was thereafter read a Second Time, considered in the Committee of the Whole and passed by the Senate, with amendments, on the 23rd May, 2013. After the passage of the Bill by the Senate, by a letter dated 24th May, 2013, to the Clerk of the National Assembly, the Clerk of the Senate forwarded the following documents to the National Assembly:- The electronic version of the Senate Hansard Report is for information purposes only. A certified version of this Report can be obtained from the Hansard Editor, Senate."
}