Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 6746,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/6746/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 304,
    "type": "other",
    "speaker_name": "",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "cited by the hon. Member for Ikolomani is certainly a most handy source of authority on Parliamentary practice. But it is helpful to bear in mind that it largely relates to the English legislature which is in a jurisdiction without a written Constitution. Member for Ikolomani, you may want to acquaint yourself with that. (b) It requires a constitutional amendment to limit itself to its own subject matter and to only make those amendments to Acts of Parliament. I want to underline this because this is in the article, it is in that paragraph. Only those amendments to Acts of Parliament that are consequential on the constitutional amendment. It is not to be understood as limiting the amendments that can be proposed to the Constitution itself in a Constitution Amendment Bill. The distinction there obviously is important. It is a matter of interpretation but you need to read that article very carefully to get the import of it. (c) It may even be argued that this is encouraged. The constitutional obligation under Article 256(2) of the Constitution, however, arises only after a Bill is published. Before the publication of a Bill in the Kenya Gazette there is no Bill which the Constitution can require to be publicized. Ultimately, the legal issues on which I had to rule were the following five issues as I isolated from the submissions of hon. Members; namely:- (i) whether or not a Minister can introduce a Bill to amend the Constitution under the ambit of “Parliamentary Initiative”; (ii) whether or not there is a requirement for public participation before the publication of a Constitution (Amendment) Bill and whether this in fact, occurred in the present matter; (iii) whether or not the disposal of this Bill by the House would be sub judice ; (iv) whether or not a constitutional amendment can cover more than one subject matter; and, (v) whether or not the Constitution (Amendment) Bill has been properly brought before the House and if thus, the Bill is admissible. I am satisfied doing the best I could, taking into account all pertinent matters and weighing one thing against another as Justice Neller would say. I arrived at the correct constitutional and lawful finding on each of the aforesaid matters in my ruling of yesterday which I reiterate. I have respectfully and with all the humility I can command, formed the view that a number of the submissions in the original points of order as well as the requests for further directions are invitations to the Speaker to make a finding on the merits or demerits of the substance of the Constitution (Amendment) Bill including such matters as whether or not the early timing of a proposal for the first constitutional amendment may not set the stage for the mutilation of a hard-won new Constitution, the soundness or goodness of the Bill and the desirability of the joinder or otherwise of the issues contained in the Bill. I did, in my ruling, determine to stay within the strict parameters of what is in my province to decide, namely; whether or not the Bill, as a matter of law and procedure, is admissible for First Reading. I did all these other matters as I have inter alia particularized above, and respectfully so to the House to decide one way or another. The House will, in its own wisdom in fullness of time have the last word as to the fate of the Constitution of Kenya (Amendment) Bill (Bill No.51 of 2011). I thank you. Next Order!"
}