Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 526976,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/526976/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 196,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Sen. Murkomen",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 440,
        "legal_name": "Onesimus Kipchumba Murkomen",
        "slug": "kipchumba-murkomen"
    },
    "content": "Therefore, Mr. Speaker, Sir, that is why we do not even discuss the conduct of another Senator without a proper Motion. We also do not just discuss the President of another country. There are certain limitations to freedom of debate in this House. Those limitations are found in our Standing Orders. We cannot be told we are debating anything and everything at anytime, including the sub judice rule. My other point is to say that we are being asked here to do an interpretation of the Constitution. I have always said here in this House, that all of us, including any citizen, has a right to interpret the Constitution but the final arbiter and institution for interpretation of the Constitution is the courts; that is listed in Article 165, which is very clear. Article 165 (3)(d) states that:- “Subject to clause (5), the High Court shall have - (d) The jurisdiction to hear any question respecting interpretation of this Constitution including the determination of – (i) the question whether any law is inconsistent with or in contravention of this Constitution” Our friends have already gone to the final entity or institution of law to make determination on whether it is constitutional or not. Why are they reversing back to a place where it is not its responsibility? I want to say this and I will go on record, we have said in this House that any person or citizen of this country that is going to question any legislation including Sen. Sang’s Bill, once we have completed a law and it is out there, we have said in this House that, that law can be declared unconstitutional any day, it is the rule of the court. Any person can go to court like the Coalition for Reforms and Democracy (CORD) has gone to court. Once they go that direction, the Speaker of the Senate and any Senator cannot be injuncted or summoned to come and explain why they made a particular law, it can be declared unconstitutional without reference to the institution that passed the law. So, to be told that we now, therefore, sit here to interpret the Constitution, to convert ourselves to the High Court, is to negate the same principle we have been arguing that we must respect other institutions. 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"
}