HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept
{
"id": 598191,
"url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/598191/?format=api",
"text_counter": 341,
"type": "speech",
"speaker_name": "November 3, 2015 SENATEDEBATES 41 Sen. Wamatangi",
"speaker_title": "",
"speaker": null,
"content": "Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, I will be very brief because most of the points I wanted to raise have been raised eloquently by the Senate Majority Leader. However, first, I want to raise a very important point. As I had raised earlier, when we refer to the Standing Orders vis-a-vis the provisions of the Constitution, it is important that we remember and be guided by Article 124 of the Constitution. It clearly stipulates that each House of Parliament may establish and shall make Standing Orders for the orderly conduct of proceedings. The word to note is “shall.” Therefore, all arguments that we may make cannot seem to trivialize the Standing Orders because they are recognised by the Constitution. However, let me make my point on exactly what I think is in front of you. There have been many arguments in this House this afternoon citing various Articles of the Constitution and the Standing Orders yet the issue that has come to the fore is the question of threshold. However, what I would want to bring to your attention and the House as you make your decision, is the prayer on your table. What did the distinguished Senator for Bungoma ask you to rule on? After citing all the Standing Orders and the Articles of the Constitution, he narrowed his question to Standing Order No.76(2). I am sure the HANSARD will bear us out as to what the Senator asked you to rule on. That is what I want to confine myself to in my submission because you cannot rule out of what you have been asked to rule out of. The questions of threshold were not raised by the Senator for Bungoma. He referred to various articles of the Constitution, but he asked you one thing which is: “Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, I want you to rule – and he read this:- he said, “I want you to rule that there is no time when this side can walk out and leave this side to make decisions.” That is the ruling you are supposed to make. If you look at the reference he made to Standing Order No.76(2), it beats logic. The decision you have to make is as simple as the question itself. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, is it possible, in the orderly conduct of this House, and the proper dispensation of the business of this House, supposing when you are there, you have complied with this provision that requires that you establish, indeed, whether there is quorum in the House; which you have done. After establishing that there is quorum, then one side decides to walk out. That is what you have been asked to rule on. The ruling you have been asked to make is: Can one side of this House walk out and leave the other to transact business? If you are persuaded or even if arguments are made to ask you to look at other matters, they have not asked you to look at them. Arguments are there in the Constitution and so, in that one simple question whether, if after you have established, as far as this Standing Order is concerned, any side of this House can walk out and leave the other to transact business, the answer is simple; that if any Members of any side of this House, after the establishment that, indeed, there is quorum to start the business of this House and even to go to the voting of this House, if any side then decides to walk out, in the process--- That Standing Order is very clear and so is the Constitution. When the process has commenced, then if any side decides to walk out, it does not bind the Speaker to stop transacting business of this House."
}