Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 7240,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/7240/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 401,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Mr. Speaker",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "On this matter, the hon. Minister is right. The Courts and this House are not seized of the same matter. The matter before the courts is distinctly different from what is before the House in the form of the constitutional amendment Bill. The High Court is being asked to interpret the provisions of the Constitution and determine the date of the next General Elections from the wording of the Constitution. Again, I want to repeat that because it is important. The High Court is being asked to interpret the provisions of the Constitution and determine the date of the next General Elections from the wording of the Constitution The question to the High Court is: “What is the election date as provided for in the Constitution?” The Court is not being asked, and cannot be asked to determine what the election date should be. But rather, the court is only being asked to interpret the provisions of the Constitution as to what the election date is. The Constitution of Kenya (Amendment) Bill, on the other hand, is proposing a date for the election. It is speaking to the question; what the election date should be . The House can deliberate on and pass an amendment of the Constitution setting out a date for the election, regardless of the decision of the Court. Similarly, the Court can rule on the election date as currently provided for in the Constitution regardless of the proposals in the Bill. Hon. Members, there is the question of whether or not the Constitution permits the introduction of what a number of members described in their contributions, as an “omnibus” Bill to amend the Constitution. Several members made reference to the history of amendments to the former Constitution and stated that such amendments had, in all instances, addressed single issues. On this matter, the Minister argued that in a number of instances, single Constitutional (Amendment) Bills had dealt with a multiplicity of matters. Hon. Members, I have carefully studied the amendments made to the former Constitution right from 1963. I have found that there are precedents for either proposition. As an example, Act No. 26 of 1964 was a single-issue Constitutional (Amendment) Bill on the subject of holding referendums to ascertain the wishes of the public with regard to the amendments to the Constitution. Act No. 6 of 1985, also a single-issue amendment, clarified the citizenship status of certain persons born in Kenya after 1963. Other single-issue amendments through the years have included: Act No.1 of 1974, No.13 of 1977, No.1 of 1979 and No.5 of 1979. This list is by no means exhaustive. There have also been numerous amendments to the Constitution that have covered a diverse range of subjects. One of the most memorable, if infamous amendments, the 1982 amendment to the Constitution (Act No. 8 of 1982) that introduced a new Section 2A and made Kenya a de jure one-party state, also introduced an unrelated and new Section 22 creating an omnipotent office of Chief Secretary. Note that these two"
}