Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 842667,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/842667/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 28,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Speaker",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "of being perceived to be descending to the legislative arena which is a function of Parliament. However, to the extent that Members of Parliament have the constitutional safeguard and freedom of rejecting the recommendations, I find that it would be unsafe to conclude that they were influenced by the President’s proposal.” (Nairobi High Court Constitutional Petition No. 353 of 2017). From the precedent set by this House and affirmed by the view taken by courts, it is therefore apparent that the claim by the Member for Mathare Constituency and his apprehension that “the consideration of the President’s reservation is, in effect, an unconstitutional faitaccompli which leaves them with no option”, is misplaced. Indeed, Article 115 of the Constitution clearly allows the President to participate in the law-making process through suggestions made to this House in his reservations. The reservations by the President will be presented as a proposal to the House for agreement and the House may vote to include it in the Bill, negate it or amend it, subject to the applicable voting thresholds prescribed under Article 115 of the Constitution. The obligation to raise the voting threshold is left to those wishing to negate the proposed text or amend the text in a manner that does not fully accommodate the President’s reservations. With regard to the implication of this higher voting requirement on the legislative authority of Parliament, allow me to quote the finding of the learned judge of the High Court in the case of the Public Audit Act, 2015: “The President’s reservations were expressed in his memorandum to Parliament in the form of several recommendations and suggestions that Parliament eventually approved and passed without amendments. The drafters of our Constitution must have intended that the President’s reservations should almost prevail when they imposed a higher threshold of two-thirds of Members in order to reject or amend the reservations.” (Nairobi High Court Constitutional Petition No. 388 of 2016) The second issue raised by Hon. Oluoch relates to the issue of public participation on the President’s reservations. On this question, I will reiterate my ruling delivered on 28th July 2015, on the reservations not being subjected to the normal Bill procedure under the Standing Orders, since the President is availing himself an opportunity similar to that enjoyed by Members of this House when proposing amendments during Committee stage. Amendments are only considered during the Committee stage and are not subjected to other processes that a Bill goes through prior to that stage. As a matter of fact, in the case of the Finance Act, 2017, the learned judge of the High Court did find that and I quote: “On the alleged non-compliance with the Standing Orders, the earlier communication from the Speaker of the National Assembly is instructive. It will suffice to state that, just like amendments to Bills; the text proposed by the President on a Bill need not be subjected to other stages a Bill is subjected to upon publication, that is, publication, First Reading, Second Reading and Third Reading. Consequently, I find that there was no breach of the procedural requirements.” (Nairobi High Court Constitutional Petition No. 353 of 2017). The electronic version of the Official Hansard Report is for information purposes only. Acertified version of this Report can be obtained from the Hansard Editor."
}