Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 640169,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/640169/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 22,
    "type": "other",
    "speaker_name": "",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "the nature of the Bill. In this case, no further issue arises as to concurrence and the legislative process would proceed as anticipated in Part four of Chapter Eight of the Constitution. The fifth 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. The speaker of the Senate does not concur with the Speaker of the National Assembly on the nature of the Bill. But the National Assembly, nonetheless, without further reference to the Senate, proceeds to consider the Bill only in the National Assembly and to presented it for assent. There is no doubt, Senators, that such process contravenes Article 110(3) of the Constitution. You will recall that the Senate was in November 2014 confronted with this issue with respect to 46 Acts of Parliament that had been processed and assented to, in contravention of Article 110(3) of the Constitution. The Senators by a resolution adopted by this House on 11th November, 2014 resolved to seek an advisory opinion from the Supreme Court on, among others, the constitutional status of Acts of Parliament which had been passed by one House of Parliament and assented to in contravention of Article 110(3) of the Constitution. In accordance with that resolution, for every Bill processed by the National Assembly in violation of Article 110(3) of the Constitution, the Senate reserves the right to challenge the legislation on account of such violation. The sixth scenario is where in respect of a Bill originating in the National Assembly, the Speaker of the National Assembly does not seek the concurrence of the Speaker of the Senate in terms of Article 110(3) of the Constitution and the National Assembly proceeds to consider the Bill only in the National Assembly and subsequently processes it for assent. This clearly violates Article 110(3) of the Constitution. As is the case in the fifth scenario, it will be open to the Senate to challenge the legislation on account of such violation. The seventh scenario is where, in respect of a Bill originating in the National Assembly, the Speaker of the National Assemblyin terms of Article 110(3) of the Constitution seeks the concurrence of the Speaker of the Senate on the nature of the Bill. The Speaker of the Senate does not concur with the Speaker of the National Assemblythe nature of the Bill. However, despite this, the National Assembly proceeds to consider the Bill and subsequently refers it to the Senate for consideration. This has happened in a number of instances and has presented challenges in the manner in which the Senate is to proceed. The first and, perhaps, more natural option would be to do nothing on the legislation. That is; to take no action whatsoever, on account of the legislation having been processed in violation of Article 110(3) of the Constitution, thus leading to a deadlock. In the process, key legislation, including legislation required for the implementation and strengthening of devolution and for the implementation of the Constitution, which is time barred, would stall. Taking into account the Senate’s role under Article 96 of the Constitution, relating to the protection of the counties and their interests, this would not augur well for our country. The electronic version of the Senate Hansard Report is for information purposes"
}