Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 386808,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/386808/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 188,
    "type": "other",
    "speaker_name": "",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "ceremonies but then one must add that it is logistical because the date for us to go to Naivasha was made long before any of us knew that these county assemblies would be opening tomorrow. So, it is unfortunate that some of us may not be able to attend but in pursuance of the Standing Orders and particularly Article 96 of the Constitution, which sets out the role of the Senate, it is imperative in my considered opinion that we should attend tomorrow’s ceremonies. We have been talking about the assertion of our authority as the Senate as pertains to the county assemblies and other devolved units. We are the bridge or the nexus between the county assemblies and the government. I heard what Sen. Sang said and I support what he said about Standing Order No.239 because it is permissive but does not quite allow because at the moment, we do not know what the rules of procedure at the various county assemblies are and whether they are going to be the same for each county or each county is going to make its own rules of procedure without reference to what the others have to do or have to say. I would like to clarify here again that the governors have nothing to do with allowing us or not allowing us to the county assemblies. This is the sole decision of the assembly itself together with the speaker because these are two different arms of the government, that is, the executive and the legislature. What we have to deal with as pertains Standing Order No.239 is the legislature. I would like to propose, like Sen. Sang, that we should work very strongly towards seeing how we can amend this specific Standing Order so that it is not a permissive Standing Order but it is a right for the Senator to be able to address the County Assembly at least for a given number of times, even if it only once per session per year, then for the other times, the elected senators to address the county assembly as issues arise. That is the only moment at which we are able to communicate our position as Senators and to assert our authority, to create and strengthen the nexus that exist between us and the county assemblies. Therefore, I stand to support very strongly this Motion. We appreciate that it is better that we adjourn the Senate for tomorrow instead of there being a lack of quorum. Whereas we realize that some of us come from very far, I would like to mention that even the Mover and the Seconder of this Motion are not in the proximity of the Senate. So, they did not bring this Motion selfishly but did so in the interest of us all so that those who are able to attend and state the position of the Senate vis-à-vis that of the county assembly may be able to do so tomorrow or when need and occasion arises. Tomorrow is going to be historical also because it is happening throughout the nation that all county assemblies would be opened by the governors. The governor would state his case of how he or she intends to lead and also state his or her vision for the county. It is good that most of us are there to be able to understand what that kind of vision it is and what it is indeed that the governors want to do. If they are acting in excess of their authority as pertains to the county assemblies, we as Senators are the ultimate House under Article 96 to be able to guard and guide them on how to proceed so that they are within the ambits of the Constitution. With those few remarks, I support the Motion as amended."
}