Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 640190,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/640190/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 43,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Ethuro",
    "speaker_title": "The Speaker",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 158,
        "legal_name": "Ekwee David Ethuro",
        "slug": "ekwee-ethuro"
    },
    "content": " Hon. Members, thank you for those interventions. I sympathise with those observations. Sen. Okong’o, Sen. Khaniri and Sen. Ndiema wanted to reconcile my final direction from the scenarios I gave. Sen. (Dr.) Khalwale wanted a confirmation that when the appropriate time comes for the Bill to be considered for Second Reading, there must be a commitment that it will not be business as usual. Sen. Haji and Sen. Wamatangi took a diametrically opposed dimension to my proposal. Let me explain. I gave all the scenarios that are possible; that one could contemplate on how to proceed under Article 110(3). This Article requires that before a Bill is introduced to either House, the two Speakers shall jointly resolve any question as to whether it is a Bill concerning counties and, if it is, whether it is a special or an ordinary Bill. The words “shall” and “jointly” are powerful. Please note the words “before introduction.” Therefore, Article 110(3) cannot be applied retrospectively. We should take into account our other roles in representing counties under Article 96 and constitutional duties in terms of Bills with timelines. That is the position we have taken all along. Should we just sit and do nothing and allow the legislation which is perfectly in order to collapse? I think that is what Sen. Haji and Sen. Wamatangi would suggest. On the other hand, do we take the higher moral ground where there is need for the two Speakers and two Houses to agree on the basis that the legislation can actually be processed in both Houses? Now that it has come and we had made a demand, should we assume that because this is the first instance, it should not come at all? We will proceed without prejudice. We will proceed having put everything on record. We are not the only institution of governance in the Republic because there are multiple institutions of governance and we have left it open. It is up to them, including the ordinary citizens, to assume certain responsibility. We are put in a very awkward position. We have passed a resolution to revisit this matter in the Motion of the 46 Bills that never came here in the first place. We are having another scenario where Bills come after the event. Under those circumstances, I direct that we do our bit as the Senate although it may not be the best under the circumstances. However, we are not saying that we approve of the violation of the Constitution. What we are saying is that we are not party to that violation and so it is open. As Sen. (Dr.) Khalwale advised, we had made presentations. The fact that we have nothing to report means that they were inconclusive. I direct that we will proceed with the Bill because we had proceeded with other Bills before in that particular manner. Let us discharge our responsibility. Just because somebody does not do their part, that should not be a reason for us not to do ours. It is messy but that is the only thing before us. Thank you."
}