Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 814417,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/814417/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 24,
    "type": "other",
    "speaker_name": "",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "accordance with Article 109(4) and Article 110(4) of the Constitution and in order to ensure that the Senate performs its constitutional role of safeguarding devolution, a Bill that concerns counties is to be considered by both Houses of Parliament. We have, however, been in the unfortunate situation where, on account of a breakdown of the concurrence process under Article 110(3), the National Assembly has originated and passed Bills without reference to the Senate despite those being Bills, without doubt, concern counties. There are examples of such Bills and in the last Parliament there were many. On the numerous examples, we have various legislations that could easily be challenged on that basis. That includes the Statutory Instruments Act of 2013, the Salaries Remuneration Act of 2011, the Pharmacy and Poisons Board (Amendment) Act of 2014, the Environmental Management and Co-ordination (Amendment) Act of 1999 and many other legislations that are against that. There is also the Computer and Cyber Crimes Bill which has been challenged in court and many other examples that hon. Senators in this House can cite. Mr. Speaker, Sir, if the intention of the National Assembly was to enact legislation of the subject matter, nothing would have been easier than for the National Assembly to proceed to the Senate and ask for the concurrence process and forward the law to come to the Senate because the Constitution requires so. In the Twelfth Parliament, the National Assembly proceeded to re-publish the National Assembly Bill and to once again process it without regard of the Senate. I want to give an example of the Bill that relates to the Parliamentary Service Commission. Mr. Speaker, Sir, as to whether Bills concern counties or not, in its advisory opinion in Reference to No.2 of 2003, the Supreme Court gave clear guidance on the test that is to be applied by the Speaker in making determination as follows- “On the matter of whether a Bill concerns counties, the Supreme Court recited its decision in an earlier matter before the court. This is in the matter of the Interim Independent Electoral Commission of 2011 and said- “There is, in reality, a close connectivity between the functioning of the national Government and county governments. We consider that the expression “any matter touching on county government” should be so interpreted as to incorporate any national level process bearing a significant impact on the conduct of the county government. However, interpretation in this category is to be made cautiously and on a case to case basis.” The court continued in its observation of the matter of the Independent Electoral Boundaries Commission- “The extent of the legislative role of the Senate can only be fully appreciated if the meaning of the phrase “concerning counties” is examined. Article 110 of the Constitution defines Bills concerning counties as being Bills which contain provisions that affect the functions and powers of the county governments as set out in the Fourth Schedule; Bills which relate to the election of Members of the County Assembly or County Executive and Bills referred to in Chapter 12 affecting finances 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."
}