Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 731766,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/731766/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 259,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Ichung’wah",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 1835,
        "legal_name": "Anthony Kimani Ichung'Wah",
        "slug": "anthony-kimani-ichungwah"
    },
    "content": "Hon. Temporary Deputy Chairlady, I want to strongly oppose the proposed amendment from a constitutional stand point. Article 116(1) and (2) of the Constitution is very clear on who has the legislative power in this country. At a time when this House is under vehement attack from the Judiciary, we cannot be appropriating our responsibility to the Executive. Giving power to the Cabinet Secretary to decide when a law should come into effect is an old way of legislating. That used to happen before the enactment of the current Constitution when members of the Cabinet used to be Members of Parliament. However, currently, CSs do not sit in this House. The responsibility of legislating and deciding when a law comes into effect is provided in Article 116(2) of the Constitution. If you allow me to read, the Constitution says as follows: “116(2) Subject to clause 3, an Act of Parliament comes into force on the fourteenth day after its publication in the Gazette, unless the Act stipulates a different date on or time at which it will come into force”. Therefore, the Mover of the amendment can only propose an operational date or time. He cannot abrogate the constitutional responsibility of determining the operational date of a Bill and purport to give it to the Cabinet Secretary. I, therefore, beg the Mover of the amendment to withdraw it. I honestly do not see why we want somebody to go to court and challenge the constitutionality of this legislation once it becomes law just because of this amendment. I urge the Mover to drop the amendment."
}