Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 917068,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/917068/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 248,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Kikuyu, JP",
    "speaker_title": "Hon. Kimani Ichung’wah",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 1835,
        "legal_name": "Anthony Kimani Ichung'Wah",
        "slug": "anthony-kimani-ichungwah"
    },
    "content": "mandate to determine whether a Bill being introduced to the House has any monetary implications. Therefore, when Bills are introduced to this House or the Senate, it is only the Speakers of the respective Houses of Parliament who have the exclusive mandate to determine whether they are money Bills or not. The use of Article 114 and our Standing Orders is not exclusive to Bills from the Senate. Members of this House sponsor Bills and bring legislative proposals every now and then. In fact, after the budget process, as the Budget and Appropriations Committee, we are considering legislative proposals from Members. Members in this House know it very well that it does not matter whether the Bill came from the Senate; even Private Members Motions and Bills, including my own, as Chairman, go through the same process. I have legislative proposals that had to go through the process as spelt out under Article 114 - the Budget and Appropriations Committee and the Speaker’s Office for determination as to whether they have monetary implications. Therefore, it is not true that this House is using Article 114 to curtail the work of the Senate. Indeed, the Senate’s own Standing Orders speak to the provisions of Article 114. Therefore, it is outrageous for them to pretend that Article 114 of the Constitution does not exist. Indeed, it is interesting that somebody can go to court to claim that a constitutional provision is unconstitutional. I do not know what the Constitution is to them then, if they claim what is provided for in the Constitution under Article 114 is unconstitutional. Further, I know in resolving the question under Article 110(3) of the Constitution, the Speaker of this House has always formed an opinion on whether a Senate Bill is a Money Bill or not and reminded the Senate on the provisions of Article 109(5), but they have always disregarded this and proceeded to originate Money Bills. That is contrary to the provisions of Article 109(5) of the Constitution. We have records of these Bills. If challenged, we can show them and prove to them that we have processed those Bills that are not Money Bills, and processed the Money Bills in accordance with Article 114 of the Constitution. Therefore, even as I support this Motion, I urge the House Business Committee to seek the views of the public as they consider it and to table before us a Report that we can consider. Even as Kenyans are called upon by the House Business Committee to give their views, let them urge senators to follow the Constitution."
}