Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 428799,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/428799/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 18,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Speaker",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "(iii) Whether in the event the relevant Committee envisaged under Article 114 of the Constitution, having consulted the Cabinet Secretary responsible for finance, recommends that a specific proposed amendment should not be considered, such amendment ought to be included in the Order Paper for the day. Hon. Members, these matters are not new to us. Indeed, some of these issues were largely canvassed in this very House during the consideration of the Finance Bill, 2013. I will, therefore, offer summary guidance. The first and second questions relate to the extent of application of Article 114 of the Constitution. For avoidance of doubt, Sub Article 2 thereof states as follows and I quote: “If, in the opinion of the Speaker of the National Assembly, a motion makes provision for a matter mentioned in the definition of “a Money Bill”, the Assembly may proceed only in accordance with the recommendation of the relevant Committee of the Assembly after taking into account the views of the Cabinet Secretary responsible for finance.” Hon. Members, Article 114(3) lists the items that constitute a Money Bill. First on that list is a Bill containing provisions dealing with taxes. It, therefore, follows that the Bill sponsored by the Member for Suba is a Money Bill. How then is the Assembly supposed to proceed when faced with amendments to a Money Bill? Again, the provisions are very clear and I quote: “The Assembly may proceed only in accordance with the recommendation of the relevant Committee of the Assembly after taking into account the views of the Cabinet Secretary responsible for finance.” This provision, in my view, is clear and absolute. Hon. Members, in construing this Article, we are guided by Article 259 of the Constitution which requires us to interpret the Constitution in a manner that promotes its purposes, values and principles and further permits the development of the law. The same Article 259 also requires every provision of the Constitution to be construed in the doctrine of interpretation that the law is always speaking. One notable observation is that our Standing Orders fail to make sufficient enabling provisions to give effect to Article 114. This is one clear area for development of law and I challenge my Committee on Procedures and House Rules to carefully study and make recommendations. However, if one would impartially apply his or her mind to provisions of Article 259 of the Constitution to address the first and second issues raised earlier on, the question of gate keeping would not arise at all. It is logical that an amendment to a Money Bill would itself amount to making a Money Bill. Since the substantive Bill would have been subjected to the requirements of that Article before publication as The electronic version of the Official Hansard Report is for information purposesonly. A certified version of this Report can be obtained from the Hansard Editor."
}