HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept
{
"id": 384802,
"url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/384802/?format=api",
"text_counter": 29,
"type": "other",
"speaker_name": "",
"speaker_title": "",
"speaker": null,
"content": "Laws of Kenya, going by the name and style of the Division of Revenue Act, No.31 of 2013. Sen. (Dr.) Khalwale suggested that to proceed, to the Supreme Court, having processed, or while seized of the County Allocation of Revenue Bill predicated on a Division of Revenue Act that we are contesting, is to go to court with unclean hands. On the contrary, it may be argued with justification that to go to court contesting conduct we claim to be unconstitutional and unlawful while, at the same time as the Senate ourselves, failing to abide by the provisions of Article 218 of the Constitution and our own Standing Order No.158(5), which requires that a County Allocation of Revenue Bill be introduced in the Senate not later than seven days following the enactment of the Annual Division of Revenue Bill, would be to proceed to court with unclean hands. Far from being complicit in the alleged unconstitutional conduct of the National Assembly, the Senate in proceeding with the County Allocation of Revenue Bill, 2013 will show that for its part, it has done everything in accordance with the law. Hon. Senators, the upshot of the foregoing is that the responsible thing for the Senate to do is to proceed with the disposal of the County Allocation of Revenue Bill, 2013 in the manner set out in the Senate Standing Orders pending the decision of the Supreme Court. The question of the statutory instrument to be proceeded upon, whether it shall be that by the National Assembly or that by the Senate is an important, but not a fatal one. The County Allocation of Revenue Bill, 2013, as hon. Senators are aware, was first published on 7th May, 2013 in the name of Sen. (Prof.) Kithure Kindiki, the Senate Majority Leader. The figures in the Bill are neither those in the disputed Division of Revenue Act, 2013, nor those in the Division of Revenue Bill as passed by the Senate. The Bill will, therefore, be read a First Time in this form at the instance of the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Finance, Commerce and Economic Affairs. Hon. Senators, after the First Reading, the Bill shall, in terms of Standing Order No.128(1) stand committed to the Standing Committee on Finance, Commerce and Economic Affairs. Following such committal, under Standing Order No.132(1), the Committee is required to present its report to the Senate within 30 calendar days of such committal. Thereafter, the Bill shall, in accordance with the Standing Orders, be processed through the Senate until the passage and subsequent referral of the Bill to the National Assembly for its concurrence. Hon. Senators, as this legislative process runs, it is noted that the Supreme Court will give directions in the matter of the advisory opinion tomorrow, Wednesday, 3rd July, 2013, where our counsel on record, will no doubt impress on the court the urgency of this matter and the significance of an early determination of it. It is well known that the Bill is in its final form at the Third Reading, may, indeed, will, probably, be in a different form than that in which it was read and will accord with the Division of Revenue Act such as it will have been pronounced by the Supreme Court. Hon. Senators, I have previously in this Communication stated that this dispute is not only about the quantum of money. It is also, and perhaps more importantly, about compliance with the Constitution, not just in this matter, but also going forward. Recent developments in the National Assembly are underlying this point. As hon. Senators are aware, Article 110(3) of the Constitution provides as follows:- 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."
}