Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 497644,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/497644/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 40,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Sen. (Prof.) Anyang’-Nyong’o",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 193,
        "legal_name": "Peter Anyang' Nyong'o",
        "slug": "peter-nyongo"
    },
    "content": "Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the Motion and also record my appreciation of the points raised by my dear friend, Sen. Kagwe, which I agree with entirely, but the conclusion of which I am in doubt. I am in doubt precisely because if I were him, I would have amended the Motion rather than defeat the spirit the Motion by throwing it out entirely. I do believe that the Motion is seeking to deal with a certain mischief. According to Sen. Kagwe, that will not be dealt with by setting up an ad hoc committee, but by throwing the ball back to the court or the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights. So, I would have wanted that the Motion be amended to meet that goal. That is why I am disagreeing with him, not because the substance of this speech is wrong. Having said that, I think Sen. Kagwe is right about that issue, because separation of powers is enshrined in the Constitution. However, it is not appreciated nor being implemented by the Government itself. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, in an earlier discussion today in our Committee chaired by Sen. (Dr.) Khalwale, I brought out a point which you, as a Member attending that Committee meeting today agreed to. I would like also to bring it to the attention of the Members. Our Committee talked about these two issues to some extent. If one reads Article 125 of the Constitution with regard to power to call for evidence--- This is in the Kenyan Constitution. Let us remember that the Constitution is the supreme law of this land. Therefore, any other Act passed by any other legislative body which is not in line with the Constitution is null and void. Therefore, any other Act which is in existence must be interpreted in the context of the Constitution. This Article reads very clearly and I quote:- “Either House of Parliament, and any of its committees, has power to summon any person to appear before it for the purpose of giving evidence or providing information.” I do not think anybody can go to a court of law saying that “I have been summoned, but I cannot go. So, I seek the laws to tell me what to do.” If I was a judge, I would say “Have you read Article 125(1) because that is enough?” There is no need nor reason a judge can say “I have heard you; the status quo remains. Do not appear, we will hear this case in six months time.” Then, really, there is no respect for the separation of law or interpretation of the Constitution. The electronic version of the Senate Hansard Report is for information purposes only. A certified version of this Report can be obtained from the Hansard Editor, Senate."
}