Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 846617,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/846617/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 144,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Speaker",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "Very well. Hon. Members, I know many of you might want to debate those two issues. On the basis of constitutionality, that is a matter on which I was already prepared. I had already been alerted. So, it is something over which I have a procedural guide. There is nothing unconstitutional about this Bill. The term omnibus does not refer to minor or trivial amendments. In fact, you could be talking about making minor amendments to existing law. But, you may just insert one word; where it talks of “10 per cent” and make it 50 per cent. That could be monumental. So, it is not the volume of the text that should be the issue to be considered. On this, the courts must also allow Parliament to do its legislative work. Let them deal with the interpretation of the constitutionality or otherwise of Bills that have been passed by the House. We cannot be held hostage by courts saying: “We think this is an omnibus law or, there are too many amendment Bills”. A Finance Bill, for instance, is an omnibus Bill. It amends several laws to deal with revenue-raising measures or even repeals in entirety certain taxation provisions in law. Some of them have such great import that if one was to say the issue of substantive vis-a-vis the text, the two would not go hand in hand. My view is that, since the issue of “omnibus law” is as old as the year 1850, go and check when the issue of abolition of slave trade after 1807, the laws did not come into place until 1850 in the United States of America. They came through what we call “omnibus”. In Australia, Canada and the UK, go check and you will see it is in around 1888. So, the issue of “omnibus” is not one that offends the practice anywhere in the jurisdictions we compare ourselves with. We have traditions and customs. Our Constitution has not disallowed miscellaneous amendment Bills. I do not think whether we could say it is “un-procedural”. My guide would be that we consider the Bills. Our requirement is under Article 10, among others; Articles 10(2)(a) and 118, which are on public participation. So, when a Bill is published, whether it contains proposals to amendment two Acts of Parliament or 10 or 15, what our Constitution requires is that the public is involved. That is why we publicise those Bills. It is so that stakeholders and any other person are able to appear before the committees of the House. That is the requirement – to appear and give their views. Indeed, even Committees can decide that proposed amendments on a particular law be rejected in entirety. What would be wrong with that? A committee can come and say it does not agree with a proposal and reject it after taking the views of Kenyans. So, I think it is within the power of the House to legislate in terms of Article 94 and 95. When we are legislating, we should not look over our shoulders save to consider what the letter and spirit of the Constitution and its substance are. In my view, Hon. Hon. (Dr.) Otiende Amollo, I would really want to direct and say that we proceed. It is within the legislative power and 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."
}