HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept
{
"id": 814423,
"url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/814423/?format=api",
"text_counter": 30,
"type": "other",
"speaker_name": "",
"speaker_title": "",
"speaker": null,
"content": "Mr. Speaker, Sir, this argument is one that seeks to fetter and impede the legislative mandate of the Senate, without any constitutional basis. The National Assembly interpretation of money Bills has in effect resulted in the frustration and eventual “death” of Bills originating in the Senate, when they have been referred to the National Assembly, as was the case in the last Parliament. Many Bills at the end of the term, had not been processed through the National Assembly because they had been packed somewhere in the name of “money Bills.” The National Assembly has turned the constitutional provision on “money Bill” on its head. To the National Assembly, a money Bill is a Bill which has any provisions of money regardless of its principal purpose. From the numerous Bills affected by these erroneous interpretation, both in this and the last Parliament, some of the recent cases of those on which we have sort concurrence, but received a response on one hand concurring that the Bills concern counties, but on the other hand averring that the Bills are money Bills and cannot, therefore, be considered in the Senate are- (a) The Public Participation Bill (Senate Bills No.4 of 2018); (b) The County Wards Development Equalization Bill (Senate Bills No.5 of 2018); (c) The County Governments Retirement Scheme Bill (Senate Bills No.6 of 2018); and, (d) The County Attorney Bill (Senate Bills No.3 of 2018). Even the County Governments (Amendment) Bills that I introduced here, that are related to the office of Governors and the Deputy Speakers are again being packed in the National Assembly in the name of “money Bills.” In addition, even when the Senate has concluded with the consideration of the Bills originating in the Senate and referred them to the National Assembly for its consideration, we have encountered a process that is unknown to the Constitution and law, where the Bills of the Senate have been held in abeyance, citing the “money Bill” argument, thus leading to uncertainty in the legislative process. Some of these bills have, eventually, never been read a First Time in the National Assembly and, therefore, ended their life in the National Assembly in a manner unknown to the legislative process. This has been of great frustration to the Senate, the Senators and the Committees that sponsored the Bills, and the counties that have anxiously waited for the passage of these bills. Mr. Speaker, Sir, as I conclude, at present, we have referred three Bills to the National Assembly which include The Urban Areas and Cities (Amendment) Bill (Senate Bills No.11 of 2017); The County Government (Amendment) Bill (Senate Bills No.11 of 2017) and, The Warehouse Receipt System Bill (Senate Bills No.10 of 2017). To date, they are yet to be introduced in the National Assembly, having been held at this stage long after the concurrence process under Article 110(3) was concluded in a process of assessment of whether they are money Bills, which is unknown to the law. We fear that these, like many other Bills before them, may meet their “death” at this stage. In my humble view, the role of the Speaker of the National Assembly, under Article 114 (2) of the Constitution as to whether a motion makes a provision for a matter listed in their definition of a money Bill, is restricted to motions and Bills of the National 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."
}