Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 577586,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/577586/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 36,
    "type": "other",
    "speaker_name": "",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "I have no intention of deviating from this longstanding Commonwealth practice which in our case, and as stated earlier, is espoused in Article 165 of the Constitution that gives or grants exclusive mandate of interpreting substantive matters of the Constitution to the High Court. It is also important to state that in the process of amending the Constitution by parliamentary initiative, the responsibility of the Speakers ends when they jointly present the Bill to the President for assent together with a certificate that the Bill has been passed by Parliament in accordance with Article 256 of the Constitution. Indeed, the particular duty of determining that question of whether or not the Bill proposed by the Member for Ugenya should be subjected to a referendum is vested in other competent authorities including the President under Article 256(5)(a) of the Constitution and, indeed, the High Court in terms of Article 165(3) of the Constitution. In summary, therefore, on the two questions, it is my finding: - One, that I will not allow any amendment to the Bill proposed by the Member for Ugenya, or, indeed, any of the other four published Bills proposing to amend the Constitution; and, two, the determination as to whether a Bill proposing to amend the Constitution requires approval by a referendum in terms of Articles 255 and 256 of the Constitution is outside the purview of the Speaker and, therefore, the Speaker shall not determine whether or not this is a Bill that requires to be referred to a referendum. The House is therefore guided accordingly. Thank you."
}