Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 903198,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/903198/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 243,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Sen. Sakaja",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 13131,
        "legal_name": "Johnson Arthur Sakaja",
        "slug": "johnson-arthur-sakaja"
    },
    "content": "(vii) the imposition of a tax, duty or charge by the national government; (viii) borrowing by the national government that affects the finances of county governments; (ix) the terms and conditions under which the national government may guarantee a loan under Article 212 (a) of the Constitution.; or (x) any other matter referred to in Chapter Twelve of the Constitution affecting the finances of county governments. (b) the Bill is – (i) the annual Division of Revenue Bill; or (ii) the annual County Allocation of Revenue Bill.‖ Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, there are currently two schools of thought. We need to agree on which is the prevailing school of thought so that it hold. There are two schools of thought that have emerged on the interpretation of Money Bills. The first school of thought is to the effect that any Bill that has any provision having financial implication is a Money Bill irrespective of other matters contained in the Bill. That school of thought is founded on the traditional Commonwealth model that required the approval of the crown where a legislation had monetary implications. I remember that in the Tenth Parliament and before, any such Bill would have to go to the Ministry of Finance to get that approval, based on the traditional model from the Commonwealth. As I mentioned, this was the position in the United Kingdom, in Kenya under the former Constitution and continues to be the position in a number of Commonwealth countries around the world. The rationale behind this was that passing Bills that had monetary implications without the approval of the Executive would disrupt the agenda and policies of the Executive and they would not be able to implement the Bill that had been passed. Going by the interpretation of this first school of thought, virtually all legislative proposals that have been drafted in the Senate or that Senators have proposed for drafting with exception of very few would fall within the definition of a Money Bill. In such a case, the introduction of the Bill to the Senate would, therefore, not be possible. This view fails to give the Constitution a holistic and purposive interpretation Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, the second school of thought with respect to what is a Money Bill is to the effect that in terms of Article 114(1) of the Constitution, a Money Bill may not deal with any matter other than those listed in the definition of a Money Bill under Article 114(3). Just because a Bill has some financial implication does not make it a Money Bill. A Bill is a Money Bill if it does not deal with any other matter other than those listed in the definition of a Money Bill under Article 114. That is where we make a mistake. A Bill could be dealing with agriculture or health. However, since there is a financial implication, we call it a Money Bill. That is not the proper interpretation. Article 114 (3) states that: – ―In this Constitution, ―a Money Bill‖ means a Bill, other than a Bill specified in Article 218, that contains provisions dealing with; a) taxes; 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."
}