Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 992851,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/992851/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 127,
    "type": "other",
    "speaker_name": "",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "process and questions on public finance in general. The Supreme Court has now delivered a precedent setting judgment, reinforcing the role of the Senate in division of revenue and in its role as the defender of the counties. Madam Temporary Speaker, I was privileged to appear for the Speaker of the Senate pro bono, together with Ms. Wangeci Thanji, an advocate from the Directorate of Litigation and Compliance. It was our honour to represent the Hon. Speaker in the said advisory decision. Our arguments on behalf of the Speaker can be found in Paragraphs 3 and 42 of the said judgment. The National Assembly was represented in the court by Hon. Kaluma. On the first implication on whether the recommendations of the Commission on Revenue Allocation (CRA) are binding upon both houses during deliberations on the Division of Revenue Bill and the Appropriation Bill; the Supreme Court has upheld Parliament’s legislative role by pronouncing that the legislative authority of Parliament must be safeguarded by requiring that Parliament pays due regard to the recommendations of the CRA, but without being bound by the said recommendations. When considering The Division of Revenue Act, the House is required to accord the recommendations of CRA the central role that the recommendations play in the equitable sharing of revenue between the two levels of Government. If this House fails to give appropriate considerations or explain a significant deviation from the recommendations of CRA, it is the view of the Supreme Court that such legislation would be unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has allowed Parliament to deviate from the recommendations of CRA. It is important for the Members of this honourable House to note that not every deviation must be explained. An explanation is only required where there is significant deviation from the proposals by the CRA."
}