Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 814413,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/814413/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 20,
    "type": "other",
    "speaker_name": "",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "resolve any question as to whether it is a Bill concerning counties and whether it is a special Bill or an ordinary Bill. This provision basically requires a concurrence process before a Bill is read a First Time in either House. It is a condition precedent to the introduction of the Bill in the National Assembly or the Senate. I am saying this with utmost respect, because we have had situations where a Bill is introduced in the National Assembly and midway we are told the question as to whether it concerns counties or not, has not arisen. This is very sad because for a law to become a law made by the Parliament of Kenya, Article 94 is very clear. It must be passed by Parliament. That passage by Parliament means that even if a Bill will not be deliberated in this House, it includes the involvement of the Speaker of the Senate in concurring whether that Bill concerns counties and, therefore, should come to this House or it is a Bill not concerning counties and can be allowed to go through the National Assembly and directly for presidential assent. Mr. Speaker, Sir, despite the clarity of these positions, we are in an unfortunate situation where the National Assembly has for all Bills originating in the National Assembly, totally ignored Article 110(3). There has been no attempt on the part of National Assembly in the Twelfth Parliament and hardly in the Eleventh Parliament to comply with Article 110(3). National Assembly Bills are, therefore, published, introduced in the Assembly and posted all the way through the enactment without recourse to Article 110(3). This is done in flagrant disregard of the Constitution which we all swore fidelity to. It is to be noted that for its part, the Senate has fully complied with Article 110(3) of the Constitution with regard to all Bills in this Parliament and in the Eleventh Parliament. Mr. Speaker, Sir, the Supreme Court in its advisory opinion Reference No.2 of 2013 pronounced itself on when and how the concurrence process under Article 110(3) of the Constitution is to be undertaken. The court stated as follows- “It is quite clear that the business of considering and passing of any Bill is not to be embarked upon and concluded before the two Chambers, acting through their Speakers, address and find an answer for a certain particular question. What is the nature of the Bill in question? The two Speakers in answering that question must settle three sub-questions - before a Bill that has been published, goes through the motions of the debate, passage and final assent by the President. The sub-questions are as follows- (a) is this a Bill concerning counties? If it is, is it a special or an ordinary Bill? (b) is this a Bill not concerning county government? (c) is this a money Bill?” Mr. Speaker, Sir, the court further noted that- “Neither Speaker may, to the exclusion of the other, “determine the nature of a Bill” for that would inevitably result into usurpations of The electronic version of the Senate Hansard Report is for information purposes only. A certified version of this Report can be obtained from the Hansard Editor, Senate."
}