Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 640166,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/640166/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 19,
    "type": "other",
    "speaker_name": "",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "direct that the Bill may be read a first time in accordance with these Standing Orders”. Consequently, in accordance with this Standing Order, the Senate would proceed to process the Bill in accordance with Part 4 of Chapter Eight of the Constitution, and the Speakers of the Houses and the Houses themselves would be estopped from subsequently raising any question regarding the nature of the Bill in terms of Article 110(3) of the Constitution. The third scenario is where, in respect of a Bill originating in the Senate, the Speaker of the Senate, in terms of Article 110(3) of the Constitution seeks the concurrence of the Speaker of the National Assembly on the nature of the Bill and the Speaker of the National Assembly does not concur with the Speaker of the Senate on the nature of the Bill. Although Article 110(3) of the Constitution requires the Speakers of the Houses of Parliament to jointly resolve any question on the nature of a Bill, Standing Order No.126(1) of the Senate Standing Orders provides an additional mechanism by which “for the purpose of making a determination whether or not a Bill concerns county governments, the Speakers may appoint a joint committee to advise them in resolving any question on such a Bill”. The Supreme Court also further stated as follows, with respect to the formation of a joint committee – “It is clear to us, from a broad purposive view of the Constitution, that the intent of the drafters, as regards the exercise of legislative powers, was that any disagreement as to the nature of a Bill should be harmoniously settled through mediation. An obligation is thus placed on the two Speakers, where they cannot agree between themselves, to engage the mediation mechanism. They would each be required to appoint an equal number of members, who would deliberate upon the question, and file their report within a specified period of time. It is also possible for the two Chambers to establish a standing mediation committee, to deliberate upon and to resolve any disputes regarding the path of legislation to be adopted for different subject matter. Had such an approach to the dispute been adopted, it is our opinion this court would, probably, not have been asked to give such an advisory opinion as a fitting solution would most likely have been found.” Where, as has been the case, all efforts are made by the Senate towards the establishment of the joint committee with no action or response from the National Assembly, Standing Order No.118(4) of the Senate Standing Orders would then apply. The Senate would be entitled to proceed with the processing of the Bill in accordance with part two of Chapter Eight of the Constitution. Thereafter, neither the Houses nor the Speakers can raise an issue regarding the nature of the Bill. Hon. Senators, the fourth scenario is where in respect of a Bill originating in the National Assembly, the Speaker of the National Assembly in terms of Article 110(3) of the Constitution seeks the concurrence of the Speaker of the Senate on the nature of the Bill and the Speaker of the Senate concurs with the Speaker of the National Assembly on The electronic version of the Senate Hansard Report is for information purposes"
}