Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 598733,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/598733/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 136,
    "type": "other",
    "speaker_name": "",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "President’s reservations. This would require the vote of a majority of the delegations in the Senate, which is 24delegations. Two, pursuant to Article 115(4) of the Constitution, the Senate may pass the Bill a second time without or with amendment that do not fully accommodate the President’s reservations. This would require a vote of two-thirds of the delegations in the Senate, which is 32 delegations. It is, of course, the case that if when the vote on each of the Memoranda is taken, there are less than 24 county delegations present in the Senate, the Motion shall not have been passed, in terms of Article 115(2) of the Constitution, but neither shall the Motion have been lost, in terms of Article 115(4) of the Constitution. It needs to be noted, however, that even where the number of county delegations present in the Senate falls below the threshold of the 24 county delegations required to carry a matter in terms of Article 123(4)(c) of the Constitution, the taking of the vote avails the Senators present the opportunity to express and put on record their position one way or the other, on the Memoranda. Hon. Senators, as I explained in my earlier Communication on this matter, Article 115 of the Constitution requires the Senate to pronounce itself on the President’s reservations by either accepting or rejecting the reservations. There is no room for demeaning, of either an acceptance or a rejection. A specific and express resolution must be made by the Senate to either accept or reject the President’s reservations. As I explained, this means that any other action that does not result in an outright acceptance or rejection of the President’s reservations puts the Bill in a constitutional purgatory requiring some new action that will re-ignite and bring the legislative process to a close. In this regard, the following may occur- Firstly, since it is evident from the rendition of Article 115 of the Constitution that the legislative process on any Bill only comes to an end when there is agreement between the Legislature and the Executive, and having found none, this may provide the occasion for further consultations between the Legislature and the Executive on the President’s reservations. Such consultations may result in a re-submission of the Motion, at an appropriate time, in accordance with the Standing Orders. Secondly, it is also possible that the situation could mark the end of the life of the Bill as published. It could instead result in the introduction of a new Bill which could either exclude the contested provisions or include the provisions in a negotiated format. The third possibility is that the failure to accept or reject the President’s reservations may be an indicator that Parliament does not intend to enact new legislations on the matters covered in the Bill and that it would rather retain the existing legislative framework. The legislative process would, therefore, come to an end. This option must be read in light of the fact that the two Bills are Bills that are subject to the constitutional timelines stipulated in Article 261 of the Constitution as read together with the Fifth Schedule to the Constitution. Hon. Senators, I now wish to direct as we go to the next order, that the Presidential Memoranda on the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Bill, (National Assembly Bill No. 40 of 2014), and the Public Audit Bill (National Assembly Bills No. 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."
}