Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 514412,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/514412/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 101,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Ng’ongo",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 110,
        "legal_name": "John Mbadi Ng'ong'o",
        "slug": "john-mbadi"
    },
    "content": "Thank you. I listened to the Leader of the Majority Party. I do not want to mention anything on a money Bill because last week, we canvassed a lot on that issue. What struck me was the issue that the Leader of the Majority Party brought forward regarding whether Article 110(3) would require that every time a Bill is being introduced in either House; that both of you sit to agree. I would like to read it. It states:- “Before either House considers a Bill, the Speakers of the National Assembly and Senate shall jointly resolve any question as to whether it is a Bill concerning counties and, if it is, whether it is a special or an ordinary Bill.” My understanding of this is that it does not require that both of you will always hold a round table meeting to agree on whether the Bill concerns counties or otherwise or whether it is a special Bill or an ordinary Bill, if it is a Bill that concerns counties. What is required by law is for the two of you to resolve. The way I understand that is that if there is a Bill that is supposed to be introduced in the National Assembly, you can communicate with your counterpart in the Senate and indicate that this is a Bill that concerns counties or it does not and your counterpart would again communicate back to you after consulting the Legal Department of either House. That is very clear. I do not understand why this is a matter that should always be raised in the plenary of the Senate, instead of your counterpart communicating with you. This is because the two of you can work very well. However, sometimes, incitement comes from Members of both Houses. The two of you should communicate. This idea of one of you not communicating with another but using the Floor of either the National Assembly or the Senate to raise matters will not take us far. In the first year, it was understandable because we were just coming in. However, now, going forward, if this issue is still coming up, then it is not reflecting very well in terms of maturity of leadership in this country. We are all in it. We are coming out badly as not being very mature. People talk of mongrel governments. Kenya has a mongrel legislature. This is something that we need to accept. The kind of Senate that we have in Kenya - and I said it from day one and I want to repeat it - is nowhere in the world. In fact, no one has ever shown me where we have this kind of Senate. That is why we have problems. The people of Kenya must take a decision either to make the Senate Upper House or if it is irrelevant, we do away with it. The assumption of the drafters of the Constitution under Article 110 was that the Senate would deal with only Bills touching on three things:- 1. A Bill in Chapter 12 affecting the finances of county governments which is clear and those Bills are there. 2. A Bill relating to the election of Members of the County Assembly or a County Executive. It is very clear but the problem comes when you talk about a Bill containing provisions affecting the functions and powers of the county governments as set out in the Fourth Schedule. Those of us in the National Assembly feel that the Senate should be restricted to discussing Bills that affect functions and powers of the counties as set out in the Fourth Schedule, not just general functions and powers of the counties. It must be those functions and powers as set out in the Fourth Schedule. 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."
}