Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 397060,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/397060/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 13,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Speaker",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "Service (Amendment) Bill 2013 and the National Police Service Commission (Amendment) Bill 2013 was contrary to the Constitution and the Standing Orders. Two, whether Clause 3 of the National Police Service Commission (Amendment) Bill 2013 that seeks to amend Section 10, Sub-section 1, paragraph K of the National Police Service Commission Act 2013 was contrary to Article 246, Clause 3 of the Constitution. Hon. Members, you will recall that the Chair undertook to rule on these matters before the House proceeds to consider these Bills at the Second Reading. Let me dispose of the first issue on whether consideration of the National Police Service (Amendment) Bill 2013 and the National Police Service Commission (Amendment Bill) 2013 by the House was contrary to the Constitution and the Standing Orders. Hon. Members, you are all aware that all the business that comes before the House is approved by the Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order No. 47(3). Amongst the issues the Speaker considers in approving the business, is the constitutionality of that business. Indeed, Standing Order No.47(3) and Articles 3 and 10 of the Constitution oblige the Chair to respect, uphold and defend the Constitution. To this extent, the National Police Service (Amendment) Bill 2013 and the National Police Service Commission (Amendment) Bill 2013, having been duly approved for publication by the Speaker pursuant to Standing Order Nos.47 and 114 are properly before the House. Hon. Members you will however recall that my predecessors have previously ruled on numerous other occasions in the past, but not withstanding the approval of any business by the Chair under the Standing Order, the issue of constitutionality can be raised by a Member at any stage of consideration of any business by the House The request for consideration of the constitutionality of a particular business, however, must be specific. It is through being specific that the Chair is capacitated to revisit the issue. In this respect, the Chair has had the occasion to re-look at the arguments advanced by the Member for Suba and noted that the hon. Member did not attempt to bring to the attention of the Chair any specific provision in either of the two Bills whose constitutionality he was contesting. This, therefore, settles the first question. As regards the second issue, as to whether Clause 3 of the National Police Service Commission (Amendment) Bill 2013 that seeks to amend Section 10, Sub- section 1, paragraph K of the National Police Service Commission Act 2013 was contrary to Article 246, Clause 3 of the Constitution, the Member for Rarieda hon. Nicholas Gumbo, raised this issue as an example of the provisions in the Bill that contradict the Constitution. Indeed, this was the only specific provision that was identified by the Members during the debate as a provision that contradicts the Constitution."
}