Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 577584,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/577584/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 34,
    "type": "other",
    "speaker_name": "",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "in accordance with Article 255 (2), the President shall assent to the Bill and cause it to be published. I note in that regard that the question of whether or not the Bill proposed by the Member for Ugenya should be subjected to a referendum is that of construing and interpreting the Constitution. Indeed, any attempt by the Speaker to make such a determination would be, in my view, in blatant violation of the Constitution, which, pursuant to Article 165(3)(d), gives the High Court the jurisdiction to hear any question respecting the interpretation of the Constitution. As such, the Speaker can neither purport to wear the hat of the Judge of the High Court nor hide behind the mask that blurs the principle of separation of powers between the Legislature and the Judiciary. Needless to say, that the interpretation of the Constitution cannot be said to be a procedural matter for determination by the Speaker, which the Speaker has the mandate to do. Further, I wish to quote the authority derived from a commonly quoted publication titled: - TheFifth Edition of the House of Representatives Practice of the Commonwealth of Australia on the subject of interpretation of the Constitution, that: - “Speakers have generally taken the view that, with exception of determining questions of procedure relating to business in the House, the obligation to interpret the Constitution does not rest with the Chair, and that the only body fully entitled to do so is the High Court. Not even the House has the power finally to interpret the terms of the Constitution.” Hon. Members"
}