GET /api/v0.1/hansard/entries/63911/?format=api
HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept
{
"id": 63911,
"url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/63911/?format=api",
"text_counter": 530,
"type": "speech",
"speaker_name": "Mr. Speaker",
"speaker_title": "",
"speaker": null,
"content": "Hon. Members, on Thursday, 10th February, 2011 when ruling on the point of order raised by Mr. Olago on whether or not in the light of the ruling of the High Court delivered by Hon. Justice Musinga on 3rd February, 2011 in Nairobi High Court, Petition No.16 of 2011, Centre for Rights, Education and Awareness (CREAW) & Others Vs. the Attorney-General, the matter of the nominations was sub judice, I remarked about how identical the issues raised on that occasion were to those raised by the same hon. Member on the 12th November, 2009, when he asked the Chair to rule as to whether or not conservatory orders issued by the High Court in Judicial Review Petition No.689 of 2008 (Samuel Mutua Kivuitu & 22 others â versus - the Attorney-General) amounted to a derogation from the Constitutional principle of separation of powers by the Judiciary. Hon. Members, I cautioned the House that the conduct of Parliamentary business requires respect for the procedure, traditions, practice and precedents established by the House. I emphasized that the Chair represents the institutional memory of the House to ensure this, and that the Chair could not, therefore, indulge in the luxury of changing positions and departing from practice and precedents, unless the operational circumstances can be shown to be distinctively different. I say this because once more, I note that we have a precedent which may have some relevance to issues Nos. 5 and 6 on whether there were consultations between His Excellency the President and the Prime Minister as contemplated by Section 29(2) of the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution, and the related questions of what the minimum threshold of consultations should be; whether consultation denotes concurrence, consensus or other measure of agreement, and the import of making the consultation subject to the National Accord and Reconciliation Act. The matter of the interpretation of the Constitutional provisions of the National Accord and Reconciliation Act was dealt with at length in a Ruling from this Chair on 28th April 2009. As matters would have it, this Ruling was also delivered at the request of Mr. Olago, who had on 23rd April 2009 sought the guidance of the Chair in respect of a dispute that had arisen on the choice of the Leader of Government in this House. Among the issues for determination then, which bear a semblance to the present matter were how any inconsistence between the National Accord and Reconciliation Act and the Constitution was to be resolved, and what the Speaker was to do in the event that he received two different letters from the same Government designating different persons as Leader of Government Business in the House. Hon. Members, on that occasion I observed that the Speaker acts as a neutral arbiter, not a protagonist in the arena that is the House, and that any Member may at any time raise to the Speaker a question on the constitutionality of any action or set of circumstances in this House and it was always open to the Chair to entertain and rule on the merits of such questions. I made it clear that the National Accord and Reconciliation Act was an integral part of the Constitution of Kenya and quoted some words for it, which you will bear with me as they warrant recitation:- âGiven the current situation, neither side can realistically govern the country without the other. There must be real power sharing to move the country forward and begin the healing and reconciliation process. With this agreement, we are stepping forward as political leaders to overcome the current crisis and set the country on a new path. As partners in a coalition Government, we commit ourselves to work together in good faith as true partners through constant consultation and willingness to compromise. This agreement is designed to create an environment conducive to such a partnership and to build mutual trust and confidence. It is not about creating positions that reward individuals; it seeks to enable Kenyan political leaders to look beyond partisan considerations with a view to promoting the greater interests of the nation as a whole. It provides the means to implement a coherent and far reaching reform agenda; to address the fundamental root causes of recurrent conflict and to create a better, more secure and more prosperous Kenya for allâ."
}