Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 992862,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/992862/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 138,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Sen. Orengo",
    "speaker_title": "The Senate Minority Leader",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 129,
        "legal_name": "Aggrey James Orengo",
        "slug": "james-orengo"
    },
    "content": "I congratulate Sen. Omogeni particularly because on the day this matter was scheduled for hearing in the Supreme Court, we had the other case which is before the High Court and most of the lawyers went there. He was not quite well prepared to go and argue the case. However, after some consultations, he agreed to go and he did a wonderful job. The arguments you made carried the day. We are very proud of one of our own for having persuaded the Supreme Court. I want to persuade the Senate because we had this argument at one time when Senators felt courts cannot injunct Parliament; I still believe that under our Constitution, as a democracy, we are all required as individuals and as institutions to comply with the rule of law. In a constitutional democracy, no institution or person is above the law. Therefore, it is only the courts that can make a determination when there is a dispute. Imagine if we enacted the law including the Constitution because the Senate and the National Assembly can amend certain provisions of the Constitution. If we amended the law and the matter went before the court and the court decided that they cannot comply with legislation as enacted by Parliament, that will undermine the rule of law which is one of the values and principles of governance found in Article 10 of the Constitution. Next time around, let us not blow hot and cold. That we can choose to disobey court orders and at an appropriate time say “Oh! What a wonderful job a court has done!” Sen. Omogeni would agree with me that the decision of the Supreme Court settles most of the questions pending before the High Court. The Chairperson of the Justice, Legal Affairs and Human Rights Committee is here and he knows the issues we have raised in many of the legislations that have been passed in the National Assembly, without the participation of the Senate. I am glad the Supreme Court has recognized the role of the Senate. It has set a mechanism, if we do not put the law in place, for resolving questions that may not be resolved through mediation. Madam Temporary Speaker, lastly, in the first advisory opinion in which the Senate instituted proceedings against the National Assembly, the Supreme Court was clear and said advisory opinion is binding and you cannot choose to ignore it. On this matter, the Supreme Court has repeated that decisions. I hope the National Assembly will be listening because they were parties to this matter. If they knew what was coming, it is time for them to come to us and agree to resolve amicably the matters pending before the High Court to do with legislation passed without coming to the Senate. Although I said that was my final word; the Division of Revenue Bill is a foundation of devolution. Without Division of Revenue mechanism where revenue is shared between the two levels of government; if that question is not resolved, then devolution is dead. What the Supreme Court said in effect is that if this mechanism for sharing revenue equitably cannot work, plus the other reasons they gave cannot be achieved, then any person or Kenyan can go before the Supreme Court for the dissolution of Parliament. It would mean that Parliament is killing the very system of government that is established under 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."
}