HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept
{
"id": 499701,
"url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/499701/?format=api",
"text_counter": 249,
"type": "other",
"speaker_name": "",
"speaker_title": "",
"speaker": null,
"content": "Mr. Speaker, Sir, I want to say a few other things about what this Motion requests the Senate to do. Last year, we had a problem with the Division of Revenue Bill 2013 and somebody felt it had nothing to do with the Senate. They processed it and took it for assent. We went to court, and the Supreme Court rightfully said that you cannot ignore the Senate in such a Bill. It even went on to describe how going forward we should handle that Bill and other Bills. I am happy because this year, because of the action we took last year, the Division of Revenue Bill came here effortlessly. Therefore, I believe that if we go for this advisory opinion, the law is on our side and clearly so, and we must make sure that the Senate, as the Motion requests, is properly represented by good lawyers; not every other lawyer is a good lawyer. Since in this House, I see a galaxy of prominent and successful lawyers, I would hope that some of my colleagues can even volunteer services to support that legal process. We all robe ourselves and go to the Supreme Court and confront the merchants of impunity, anarchy and those who want to fight the dream of the people of Kenya. Mr. Speaker, Sir, I also want to clarify that 46 Bills initiated by the National Assembly without even requesting concurrence is a number too many. The 21 Bills from the National Assembly where concurrence discussions were going on but before decisions could be made, the Bills were processed and sent for assent---. Again, that is a number too many. The 26 Bills from this House where the Speaker of the Senate requested for concurrence, in the majority of those cases, no response has been forthcoming month on end or in a few cases a response that says “this Bill does not concern counties” has come again unilaterally, without invoking the default mechanism of a mediation committee. Again, this is gross abuse of the Constitution of the Republic of Kenya. It cannot be entertained, it cannot be countenanced and the Senate will be players, aiders and abetters in this heinous crime against the people of Kenya if we keep silent as this kind of behaviour goes unabated. Mr. Speaker, Sir, allow me to change gears and touch very briefly on a matter that has also startled legal minds in this country in the last few months. I say legal minds to include advocates, both experts in national and international law, to mean judges in all the courts in this country and even other lawyers who are not serving either in the judiciary or at the bar. This has to do with the misguided, erroneous and illegal notion by some judges that they can injunct the Parliament of the Republic of Kenya. This is a new thing, it has not happened before, not in Kenya, not in the Commonwealth, not anywhere in the world and among the principal legal systems of the world. This has never happened in the common law, not in the civil law system, not even in the Islamic Sharia Law, not even in the other hybrid systems of law and not even in the Hammurabi Law. No court, including a kangaroo court, can purport to injunct Parliament. The constitutional law 101 on this matter, there is a difference between parliamentary activities that are not related with our core function and parliamentary activities that have to do with representation, oversight and legislation because that is our core function. Any court of law is free to injunct this Senate, the National Assembly or 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."
}