Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 63916,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/63916/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 535,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Mr. Speaker",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "Hon. Members I have noted, and so have you, I am sure, that a good part of the debate on the constitutionality of the nomination process has centered on whether or not His Excellency the President consulted the Right Hon. Prime Minister on the nominations, the duration and extent of consultations and whether there was or there was required to be any concurrence. Section 9(2) of the Sixth Schedule has been much quoted in the contributions in the House. Although it is quoted in my write up, I will not read it. Because of this sub-section, there have been a number of suggestions on the meaning of consultations. Numerous precedents have been cited from the Commonwealth and beyond. I acknowledge with much appreciation that I have been referred by friends and well wishers and very well meaning ordinary Kenyans, to learned commentaries and opinions on how courts and tribunals in various jurisdictions have interpreted the phrase “after consultation”. Having considered all these, I do think that the over-emphasis on the meaning and scope of consultation can lead to a blurring of the larger picture on this matter. I also think that the matter is probably not nearly as complex as it has been made out. In legal circles, it is said that precedence should not be invoked unless they are pari materia with the matter being dealt with. This means that you must compare only comparable situations and circumstances. Hon. Members, the consultation required of the two Principals in our Constitution is subject to the National Accord and Reconciliation Act. With respect, I have been unable to find, because there have to exists, a precedent from anywhere in the world where “consultation” is made subject to an identical standard as our National Accord and Reconciliation Act. The threshold of consultation and its parameters are demarcated in the National Accord and Reconciliation Act as cited above. After careful consideration of this matter, doing the best I can, weighing one thing against another, it is my considered opinion that the required standard of consultation is not so high as to mean concurrence or agreement and thereby become a recipe for deadlocks and brinkmanship. In my estimation, considering Article 259 (1) of the Constitution and the events that led to the Accord, I am convinced that the minimum consultation expected and required by Section 29 (2) of the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution is one that results in “compromise”."
}