Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 814415,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/814415/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 22,
    "type": "other",
    "speaker_name": "",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "jurisdiction, to the prejudice of the constitutional principle of the harmonious interplay of State Institutions. It is evident that the Senate, though entrusted with a less expansive legislative role than the National Assembly, stands as the Constitution’s safeguard for the principle of devolved government. This purpose will be negated if the Senate were not to participate in the enactment of legislation pertaining to the devolved units, the counties as per Article 96(1)(2) and (3). It is clear to us, from a broad purposive view of the Constitution, that the intent of the drafters, as regard the exercise of legislative powers, was that any disagreement as to the nature of the Bill should be harmoniously settled through mediation. An obligation is thus placed on the two Speakers, where they cannot agree between themselves, to engage the mediation mechanism. They would each be required to each appoint an equal number of Members, who would deliberate upon the question, and file the report within a specified period of time. It is also possible for the two Chambers to establish a standing mediation committee to deliberate upon and resolve any disputes regarding the path of legislation to be adopted for different subject matter.” Mr. Speaker, Sir, despite the provisions of the Constitution and the pronouncements of the Supreme Court and despite numerous interventions of the Senate and its leadership, the National Assembly has remained non-compliant as far as the concurrence process is concerned. The National Assembly has argued that the concurrence process does not arise unless and until, “a question” has been raised as to the nature of a Bill. It has not been made clear to us who is supposed to raise this question: Is it a Member of the National Assembly, a Senator, a concerned citizen? Where is the question to be raised? Can it, for example, be raised at the Third Reading or just before the Presidential assent? Is it to be raised in Parliament or at some other place? More importantly, of what benefit would it be for the National Assembly to proceed with a Bill and to spend valuable time and resources, not knowing if or when the question may be raised? It is difficult to sustain this argument when Article 110 of the Constitution is clear that the concurrent process and, therefore, the question always arises before a Bill is read a First Time in either House. Mr. Speaker, Sir, sadly in respect of Bills originating in the National Assembly, the legislative process has encountered legal challenges on account of non-compliance with the concurrence process under Article 110(3). Noting that most of the Bills in the National Assembly are Bills originating from the Executive and which the Executive and the country as a whole are eagerly awaiting in order to ensure that the delivery of the agenda of the Republic of Kenya, there is absolutely no reason why the legislative process should not be followed to the letter to avoid legal challenges and the resultant unnecessary embarrassment. Two, is about Bills concerning counties originating in the National Assembly. Article 110 of the Constitution allows the Speakers of the two Houses, in the concurrence process, to determine whether the Bill concerns counties. This is important because in 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."
}