Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 966684,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/966684/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 183,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "The Deputy Speaker",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "The National Treasury, the Controller of Budget, the Auditor-General and the respective County Assemblies and County Executive Committees Members, to work directly with the deputy county governor, while exercising the functions of the county governor, in order to facilitate the effective functioning of county governments and the efficient delivery of services to the public”. The wording of this resolution betrays the existence of a problem; that the deputy governors who are acting as result of the substantive governors being barred from accessing the county offices are not getting full cooperation from the national Government or county government agencies, or at all. Why should the Senate direct or order the national Government and county government agencies to extend cooperation to a deputy governor who is acting as a county governor lawfully? Would the legal consequences of non co-operation not be the same if the lack of cooperation was extended to a county governor? The answer is yes. Besides, the use of the term “direct” in the resolution paragraph leads me to ask if, assuming this Motion was not unconstitutional, the Senate has the wherewithal to ensure that the agencies named in the Motion comply with the directives of the House Resolution. While the Senate may give directives to the named agencies when the House is exercising parliamentary oversight responsibilities under Article 96(3) of the Constitution, the House, in my view, has no such powers to direct the listed agencies to execute their respective routine, day to day functions. To say the Senate can direct so would amount to subversion of the doctrine of separation of powers, which this House strongly waves at the Judiciary or the Executive whenever any of them tries to encroach on our functional realm. The Senate must not just invoke the principle of separation of powers to assert the authority of Parliament. It must defend it by complying with it and restraining from venturing into the functional turf of the Executive or the Judiciary. What is good for the goose must be good for the gander, as Sen. Mutula Kilonzo Jnr., likes to remind us. Thus, assuming the Motion was constitutional, which it is not, it should have, at least, recommended or urged the listed agencies but not to direct them. In consideration of what I have determined herein, the Motion sponsored by Sen. Ole Kina is unconstitutional and ab initio inadmissible within the meaning and context of Standing Order No.55(3)(b) for being contrary to the Constitution, without expressly proposing appropriate amendments to the Constitution. 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."
}