Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 411519,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/411519/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 179,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Speaker",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "who would recall, this matter was debated at great lengths even at the level of the Committee of Experts. It is not unique to Kenya that Presidents assent to Bills before they become laws. However, in your own Constitution, you went on to provide that given certain circumstances, if the President does not assent to a Bill that has gone through certain processes seven days after publication, it becomes law automatically. It is there, read Articles 115 and 116. Now you are speaking about what is already in the Constitution and saying that we could easily have some rogue President. As Kenyans, you are at liberty to make a decision as to how to address the situation of engagement or involvement of the Executive in the legislative process. Do you want the President to ever have any say in the legislative process other than proposing legislation more so at the tail end before coming into force of laws? That is the issue we appear to be discussing, but as it is the President has a role in the Constitution which is provided for in Article 115. He has exercised his function. Hon. Jakoyo Midiwo posed a question and suggested that the President’s requirement under the Constitution was to write some treatise expressing reservations and then the House would come to amend the treatise. Then you have forgotten how we make laws. We do not make laws through the writing of dissertations or essays. The President cannot be expected to write an essay expressing reservations--- Hon. Members, you must interpret what is in the Constitution alongside the normal procedures and processes of making laws. If the President has reservations, how does he express it? It is by way of proposing amendments clauses by clauses. It is for that reason that it is said that to address it, you must go clause by clause. We have traditions which we must follow. Do not shut your minds from what has happened in the past and just adopt your own new procedures. Hon. Members, the President has done what he has done. It is up to you as a House to say, we do not agree. If you do not agree, your own Constitution says that if you do not agree, you raise two-thirds. You cannot just say that today, because we cannot raise, this must be changed. How do you know whether tomorrow you might want to agree? If you think that this clause is obnoxious, again, it is within your power to propose amendments to the Constitution, but we cannot begin to say that we cannot follow this merely because we think that today it does not suit us. That is a very selective way of doing things. So, Members, we do not need to begin debating by way of points of order, whether we are going to the next Order. What has been done has been done. It is up to you. I told you that I am a very lucky person that I do not have to make a decision in this matter. It is you who will make the decision, whether to approve the President’s Memorandum in whole or with amendments. If you propose to amend, again, your own Constitution says that you must have two-thirds or reject it. In fact, you can reject the entire Memorandum. Again, it is a matter of following the Constitution."
}