Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 881244,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/881244/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 120,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Kipkelion East, JP",
    "speaker_title": "Hon. Joseph Limo",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 1915,
        "legal_name": "Joseph Kirui Limo",
        "slug": "joseph-kirui-limo"
    },
    "content": "1. The petitioners were challenging the constitutional authority of Parliament in making laws whereas Article 94(5) grants this authority to Parliament as the only body that has powers to make provisions that have full force of the law. 2. The CBK Governor was reluctant to implement the law due to misconception that Parliament is against regulation of the banking industry. The CBK consequently has run campaigns depicting Parliament as anti-regulation, which is not true. In the same meeting, he kept on locking his mind to the fact that Parliament only wanted to give the regulations the full force of the law, but he was showing the whole world that Parliament was against regulating the banking sector, which is not true. 3. There was no order granted halting the implementation of Section 33(c) pending court hearing. Therefore, the CBK was bound by the provision as it was passed by the House. Contrary to what the CBK has done, they ought to have implemented Section 33(c) pending determination. In the current case, they have not sought and have never been given an order stopping the implementation. Therefore, the fact that there is a case should not be used by the CBK to refuse to implement the law. 4. The CBK did not comprehend the intent of the law. They did not want even to understand why the law was enacted. They deliberately misinterpreted the law to suit their own interest. In fact, they have gone ahead to continuously publish articles in the Press to depict Parliament as campaigning to reverse the gains which they have done in the banking sector. 5. The nature of the guidelines issued by the CBK is subsidiary legislation to which Parliament has a duty to scrutinise under the Statutory Instruments Act. Therefore, as it is now, on the regulations which the CBK has already implemented in the banks, if someone is taken to court for violating them, the court cannot use those regulations to take action against any bank manager who has refused to follow the regulations. 6. The guidelines in the form of circulars issued by the CBK are illegal as far as they do not adhere to the provisions of Section 33(c) of the Banking Act and they cannot be used at any time in a court of law. The CBK refused to implement the law on the pretext that the matter is in court yet the court has not prevented them from implementing. Finally, the Governor continues to mislead the public that Parliament, by enacting Section 33(c), is opening the banking sector to illegal financial flaws. In fact, during the meeting, we explained that by bringing those regulations to this House, Kenya will be among the best in the world because they will have the full force of the law instead of following what other countries are doing by using memos. It is upon this House to come up with the way forward. It is however, important to note that the Departmental Committee on Finance and National Planning executed their mandate according to Standing Order 216(5)(c), which is to study and review all legislation referred to it. It is, therefore, the mandate of the Committee on Implementation in accordance with Standing Order 209, to follow up on the implementation of the law and carry out further investigations on the same. I thank you, Hon. Speaker."
}