Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 417681,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/417681/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 263,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Oyugi",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 444,
        "legal_name": "Augostinho Neto Oyugi",
        "slug": "augostinho-neto-oyugi"
    },
    "content": "I would like to make a couple of preliminary remarks before giving you, perhaps, my line of thought on this matter. One, I am not sure if we can extrapolate Article 96(1) of the Constitution. I know my hon. colleagues are showing solidarity with the House of Senate. Our oversight role is very express, as the National Assembly. This is because Article 95(3) does create our oversight role is very express terms; it says that the National Assembly exercises oversight over national revenue and its expenditure. I am not so sure if the same could be said of Article 96(1) of the Constitution with regard to the Senate to extrapolate that in a manner that says that the Senate could have an oversight role. The other thing I would like to speak on is Article 125 of the Constitution. Of course, and indeed, it is true that either House of Parliament does have powers to summon individuals, but I am also sure again that, that power to summon arises when it is on issues to do with oversight, which are not expressly given by the Constitution. Having made those preliminary remarks, let me speak about these things. First, the principle of separation of powers does give the Judiciary, Parliament and the Executive a chance of checking each other. Those checks and balances do not mean that one either gags the other or stops the work of the other. For the Judiciary to move in the manner that it has once or twice done in the case of the National Assembly to stop us from debating serious Bills or other activities--- That is not what checks are envisaged for by either law or the doctrine of separation of powers. Hon. Speaker, a check on the Senate or the National Assembly in a matter--- For example, if they were summoning the county governors, that will be as a matter of review. This is because it is true that we cannot be stopped from doing whatever we want to do. Article 1(2), which of course you referred to earlier, does give the exercise of sovereign power directly and democratically to elected representatives. It is true that the only people who have the mandate to exercise sovereign power are the National Assembly and the Senate. Hon. Speaker, for the Judiciary, therefore, to purport that it can gag Parliament when we try to exercise our sovereignty I think is outrightly wrong. The Judiciary can, indeed, check on the National Assembly and the Senate. However, it does that by either saying that the laws that we pass are unconstitutional or reviewing the various laws that we have made. In the case of the Senate, if the Judiciary wanted to check the Senate, it ought to have waited for the Senate to proceed on the acts it was doing, find that they are"
}