masukuma wrote:Quote:
Amendment by popular initiative
257. (1) An amendment to this Constitution may be proposed by a popular initiative
signed by at least one million registered voters.
(2) A popular initiative for an amendment to this Constitution may be in the
form of a general suggestion or a formulated draft Bill.
(3) If a popular initiative is in the form of a general suggestion, the promoters
of that popular initiative shall formulate it into a draft Bill.
(4) The promoters of a popular initiative shall deliver the draft Bill and the supporting signatures to the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission, which shall verify that the initiative is supported by at least
one million registered voters.
(5) If the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission is satisfied that the initiative meets the requirements of this Article, the Commission shall submit the draft Bill to each county assembly for consideration within three
months after the date it was submitted by the Commission.
(6) If a county assembly approves the draft Bill within three months after the date it was submitted by the Commission, the speaker of the county assembly shall deliver a copy of the draft Bill jointly to the Speakers of the
two Houses of Parliament, with a certificate that the county assembly has approved it.
(7) If a draft Bill has been approved by a majority of the county assemblies, it
shall be introduced in Parliament without delay.
(8) A Bill under this Article is enacted by Parliament if supported by a majority
of the members of each House.
(9) If Parliament enacts the Bill, it shall be submitted to the President for assent
in accordance with Articles 256 (4) and (5).
(10) If either House of Parliament fails to pass the Bill, or the Bill relates to a
matter mentioned in 255 (1), the proposed amendment shall be submitted to
the people in a referendum.
(11) Article 255 (2) applies, with any necessary modifications, to a referendum
under clause (9).
What happens if county assemblies fail to pass the thing?
As you rightly put it, its clause 6 and 7 that may present a problem. I recommend the promoters of the Bill also include County Reps and also introduce matters financial in the Bill in a way that creates a pecuniary interest.
Since the Katiba does not expressly bar County Reps on voting on issues they have a financial interest on, they can apply to the Supreme Court for interpretation and hope the Court extends (Article 122 - 3) to also include the County Reps. With that they can circumvent clause 6 and 7.
On Clause 8, 9 and 10, its all in black and white, Mpigs shouldn't vote on any matter they have a pecuniary interest on.
Viola, we jump from clause 4 straight to a referendum in clause 10.
Quote:Article 122
Voting in Parliament.
122. (1) Except as otherwise provided in this Constitution, any question proposed for decision in either House of Parliament shall be determined by a majority of the members in that House, present and voting.
(2) On a question proposed for decision in either House—
(a) the Speaker has no vote; and
(b) in the case of a tie, the question is lost.
(3) A member shall not vote on any question in which the member has a pecuniary interest.
(4) In reckoning the number of members of a House of Parliament for any purpose of voting in that House, the Speaker of that House shall not be counted as a member.