Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 865727,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/865727/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 307,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "The Deputy Speaker",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "Third is with regard to what Sen. Omogeni, who is a Senior Counsel, said on a second advisory opinion. It says with a good Speaker anything concerns counties. That is my view. I agree entirely with learned justices. Fourth, the advisory opinion was not addressed to Article 103 of the Constitution. This is because the issue of what constitutes matters affecting counties appears in two places; in Article 123 of the Constitution for all the business of the Senate other than Bills. It also appears in Article 109 of the Constitution for Bills. The Supreme Court was addressing itself to Bills. It said that any Bill about anything can be a Bill concerning counties, including a Bill on functions which appear to be national Government functions. I share the same view. My ruling today is on Article 123 of the Constitution. On another occasion, if I am moved because the Speaker does not move unless he is moved, he cannot bring business. I can unpack the second advisory opinion of the Supreme Court on Bills concerning counties. Today, time will not allow me to canvass that. However, I will canvass on Article 123 of the Constitution which is: What matters concern counties and, therefore, influence voting by delegations? What jurisprudence do we have? What parliamentary precedent do we have from this Senate because this is our sixth year? I have looked at what has been decided and the guidance that is available and I entirely agree with the determination made by the former Speaker Hon. Ekwee Ethuro in the Eleventh Parliament. Allow me to quote him. It reads- “The established precedence says that the issue of what constitutes matters concerning counties under Article 123 of the Constitution and Standing Order No.78 of the Senate Standing Orders, is a matter whereby- -- Please, allow me to get that because it is important. I want to ignore the procedural issues. In short, he said it is a matter that touches on the Fourth Schedule. If anything touches on the Fourth Schedule, then it is a matter concerning counties. That is what the Speaker has said before and I agree with him, entirely. However, I agree that matters that concern counties are a much broader and deeper concept. For me, these are the instances that constitute matters concerning counties. They are eleven of them- (1) Any matter which has implications on any of the functions that are listed in Part 2 of the Fourth Schedule as read together with Article 186(1) of the Constitution, which talks about matters under the exclusive jurisdiction of county governments. (2) Anything that is exclusively a county function, without sharing with the national Government, in the Fourth Schedule, Part 2 read together with Article 186(2), that is a matter concerning counties. So far, this is the only jurisprudence that we have. Our interpretation had stopped there but I have ten other instances. These are- (3) Any matter, which constitutes what is known as concurrent jurisdiction. Under the law, in Article 186, there is exclusive jurisdiction where some matters are in the national Government and others are in counties. However, there are also other matters, which have concurrent jurisdiction. For example, you will find that health policy is in The electronic version of the Senate Hansard Report is for information purposesonly. A certified version of this Report can be obtained from the Hansard Editor, Senate."
}