The 10th paragraph of the SIXTH SCHEDULE in CHAPTER EIGHTEEN reads:

"10. The National Assembly existing immediately before the effective date shall continue as the National Assembly for the purposes of this Constitution for its unexpired term."

I have highlighted the phrase "for its unexpired term" because this where the contentions lies.

My understanding is that to find out what the unexpired term is, we have to go to the old constitution to find out how the term of parliament is defined.

This is found in section 59 of the OLD constitution and it reads:
59
(1) The President may at any time prorogue Parliament.

(2) The President may at any time dissolve Parliament.

(3) If the National Assembly passes a resolution which is supported by the votes of a majority of all the members of the Assembly (excluding the ex-officio members), and of which not less than seven days’ notice has been given in accordance with the standing orders of the Assembly, declaring that it has no confidence in the Government of Kenya, and the President does not within three days of the passing of that resolution either resign from his office or dissolve Parliament, Parliament shall stand dissolved on the fourth day following the day on which that resolution was passed.

(4) Parliament, unless sooner dissolved, shall continue for five years from the date when the National Assembly first meets after dissolution and shall then stand dissolved.

(5) At any time when Kenya is at war, Parliament may from time to time provide for the extension of the period of five years specified in subsection (4) for not more than twelve months at a time: Provided that the life of Parliament shall not be extended under this subsection by more than five years.

Clearly, there WERE three ways in which the term could expire:

1] By presidential dissolution

2] By parliamentary resolution to dissolve

3] After expiry of 5 years

I do not understand why everybody is only thinking about the last one and ignoring the other two... which BTW, appear earlier in the list.

So, this is what will happen: come June next year, the President will have authority to dissolve the House, despite what the new constitution says about the term of parliament being independent. in my view, this independence is only applicable to a parliamnet elected under this constitution.

However, in order to give such a move legal backing, it would be wise to seek a constitutional interpretation through the Supreme Court.

therefore, I do not see any problem.

But we still have the Article 89(2) problem:

"The Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission shall review the names and boundaries of constituencies at intervals
of not less than eight years, and not more than twelve years, but any review shall be completed at least twelve months before a general election of members of Parliament."

It is unlikely that this review, by a body that is yet to be set up, will be completed by 14th August 2011.

mimi hapana mwnasheria... but my litle understaning of the electral date is as follows:-

kama kura ni next year, the date can only be August 2012 because we can only vote in august. Otherwise August 2013. Clause 101. (1) A general election of members of Parliament shall be held on the second Tuesday in August in every fifth year.

Surely we can't vote in 2013 coz there is no reason now to prolong parliament (and is it prolongable anyway, i doubt)!

In my understanding, the new constitution is now the supreme law of the land and anything else that existed before ceased the day it was promulgated and that's why MPs have to pay taxes despite being elected under the old constitution where this was not expected of them. So election will either be in Aug 2012 or Aug 2013.

@mpezi, had never thought of this hurdle - if truth be told, it will require not just sharp legal minds but the general goodwill of kenyans at this stage