This is the wrong move. That provision for the executive has always been there whether in the Westminster or in any other jurisdiction, there has to be a role of the President.
The President has to sign any bill that is passed in Parliament before it becomes a law and if he discovers that there are some sections of the bill that need to be addressed, he sends it back to Parliament with a memorandum.
The only way that Parliament can override the President’s memorandum is to raise the Constitutional threshold of two thirds on the floor of the House.
There is no shortcut about it. The two-thirds threshold is applicable in Constitutional amendments bills and therefore the Members of Parliament cannot now purport to want to make the changes.
You cannot have your cake and eat it. The proposal is ridiculous and mischievous. The President has the final say in what is known as the final responsibility as the Head of State.
So what they are attempting to do amounts to legislator thuggery- you give them that leeway and they will run this country the way they want with ridiculous legislation.
Supposing they were to propose changes reversing the Constitutional liberties that we enjoy at the moment?
We need to be conscious as a country lest we go back to dark days. All these things were not put there just the other day, they have been there for decades and decades even the American system of governance has that provision where the President can say no.
There has to be a balance of power between all the three arms of government- the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary.
The provision that gives the President that power is a way of oversight of the legislature so that it cannot abuse its powers. What they are trying to do does not happen anywhere in the world and Kenya cannot be the first one to set such bad precedence.
The House Business Committee chaired by the Speaker should reject such a proposal or else Parliament become dictatorial.
The former Deputy Speaker in the 9th Parliament spoke to the Star
