Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 995254,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/995254/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 45,
    "type": "other",
    "speaker_name": "",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "Hon. Members, you will recall that during the Morning Sitting of the House on Wednesday, 6th May 2020, the Leader of the Majority Party rose on a point of order before the Motion for consideration of the mediated versions of the County Governments (Amendment) Bill (Senate Bill No.11 of 2017) and the County Governments (Amendment) (No.2) Bill (Senate Bill No.7 of 2017) was moved. He was seeking the direction of the Speaker on whether it was appropriate for the House to proceed with the consideration of the mediated versions of the two Bills. In his view, the manner in which the Senate approved the two Bills contravened the provisions of Article 123 of the Constitution regarding decisions of the Senate. To buttress his point, the Leader of the Majority Party tabled a copy of the Hansard Report of the Senate proceedings for the afternoon of Tuesday, 21st April 2020 and alluded to a portion of the proceedings where the Senate approved the mediated versions of the two Bills through a procedure he referred to as “proxy voting”. It was, therefore, his contention that the procedure adopted by the Senate violated the Constitution and, as such, the House ought not to proceed and endorse such action by approving the mediated versions of the two Bills. The point raised by the Leader of the Majority Party elicited divergent views from Members, including the Leader of the Minority Party, the Whip of the Minority Party, the Deputy Whip of the Minority Party, Hon. Peter Kaluma, Hon. Amos Kimunya and Hon. Daniel Tuitoek. The main issue arising from the point of order and the ensuing debate was twofold: (i) whether the House ought to interrogate the procedure applied by the Senate in its passage of a Bill concerning county governments and such Bill having been referred to this House for consideration or and whether the procedure applied by the Senate in its approval of a mediated version of any Bill has any implication on the consideration of that version of the Bill in this House; and, (ii) what remedy would be available to this House should it be claimed that the procedure applied by the Senate to pass a Bill concerning county governments or the procedure applied to approve a mediated version of a Bill is in contravention of the Constitution. Hon. Members, at the outset, I wish to interrogate the provisions of Standing Order No.87 (5), which was alluded to during the debate on the matter and its effect on the issue raised by the Leader of the Majority Party. The Standing Order states as follows: “87(5). It shall be out of order for a Member to criticise or call to question the proceedings in the Senate or the Speaker’s ruling in the Senate, but any debate may be allowed on the structures and roles of the Senate or Parliament.” The Standing Order is replicated word for word in Standing Order No.96 of the Senate Standing Orders. This rule of procedure seeks to safeguard parliamentary proceedings and decisions of the Speakers from possible indictment in either House of Parliament. Indeed, it was The electronic version of the Official Hansard Report is for information purposesonly. A certified version of this Report can be obtained from the Hansard Editor."
}