Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 467309,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/467309/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 69,
    "type": "other",
    "speaker_name": "",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, there are also a number of factors which clearly show that this is contrary to our Constitution; not just in respect of the decision made but, also, they state that this should revert until the county governments fulfill the requirements of the County Governments Act 2012 and the Transition to Devolved Government Act, 2012. Although it is stated there, we do not have any facts on which we can form the basis of that opinion. The only thing that is giving me a little bit of a problem on this is really something that is almost null and void, ab initio . But it is now really up to you to decide whether it is a matter that can automatically go to the Committee concerned. When I look at it, Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, we will have to decide on it, and it does appear to me that when it is about a Motion to be brought, then we have to consider whether the contents of that Motion are in accordance with the Constitution in terms of Standing Order No.45(3), which states:- “If the Speaker is of the opinion that any proposed Motion- (a) is one which infringes, or the debate on which is likely to infringe, any of these Standing Orders; (b) is contrary to the Constitution or an Act of Parliament, without expressly proposing appropriate amendment to the Constitution or the Act of Parliament;” Now, it is quite clear that this Petition is, in a sense, contrary to the Constitution. In other words, we do not have the decision of the President himself on this matter. Yet when I look at the Standing Order which relates to Petitions, it appears that the Chair made the correct decision because it was not for you to address yourself on the constitutionality of this particular Petition. When you are to decide whether or not to admit this petition, there is no requirement under Standing Order No. 220 which requires you to consider whether or not this Petition is constitutional. So, this Petition, although unconstitutional, is properly before us, in accordance with our Standing Orders. Therefore, it does appear to me that although I think it is unconstitutional, you might have no alternative but to refer it to the relevant Standing Committee which, in its report to us and having considered all the facts, will now come and say this was unconstitutional. That is what I wanted to contribute on this matter. Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir."
}