Nubian Rights Forum & 2 others v Attorney General & 6 others; Child Welfare Society & 9 others (Interested Parties) [2020] eKLR title for the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Amendment) Bill 2018 was “A Bill for AnActof Parliament to make various amendments tostatute law”, and, unlike the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Amendment) Bills for 2015 and 2016 whose long titles were “A Bill for An Act of Parliament to make minor amendments to statute law”, the word ‘minor’ was not used in the 2018 statute. He asserts that neither the Constitution nor the rules of the National Assembly disallow the use of miscellaneous amendment Bills. 658. Developing his case from the above assertions, the 6th Respondent argues that Article 124 of the Constitution gives the National Assembly power to establish Standing Orders to regulate conduct of Parliamentary proceedings. He submits that Article 109 of the Constitution gives absolute power to Parliament to exercise legislative authority which is derived from the people. The implication of this, in the 6th Respondent’s view, is that the Constitution has not defined and or limited the legislative processes and powers of Parliament and it is left to each House of Parliament to develop in the Standing Orders how to initiate Bills and other legislative processes. It is the 6th Respondent’s contention that it would have been different if the Constitution had imposed a limitation on this function or on the nomenclature of Bills to be determined by Parliament. The decision in the case of Transparency International v Attorney General and 2 others, HC Petition No. 388 of 2016 is cited in support of this submission. 659. The 6th Respondent submits that the Petitioners are simply calling upon the court to prescribe to the National Assembly what should be contained in the House Standing Orders. In his view, the remit of this court does not extend to the prescription of Standing Orders for the National Assembly. The case of Nathanael Nganga Reuben v Speaker, Machakos County Assembly & another [2016] eKLR is cited as holding that courts should exercise judicial restraint as regards Parliamentary and County Assembly proceedings which are closely and directly connected with the fulfilment by the Assembly or its members of their functions as a legislative and deliberative body. 660. The 6th Respondent buttresses the above contentions by submitting that the Supreme Court upheld the principle of allowing Parliament to regulate its internal matters in the case of Speaker of the Senate & another v Attorney-General & 4 others [2013] eKLR when it held that “[t]his Court will not question each and every procedural infraction that may occur in either of the Houses of Parliament” and that the “Court cannot supervise the workings of Parliament”. Also cited in support of the same proposition is the decision of this court in Republic v National Assembly Committee of Privileges & 2 others Ex-Parte Ababu Namwamba [2016] eKLR and that of the Court of Appeal in Pevans East Africa Limited and Another v Chairman, Betting Control & Licencing Board and 7 others, Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2018; [2018] eKLR. 661. The 6th Respondent submits that the use of omnibus Bills is not new to the National Assembly. He cites the Finance Bill which is passed every year and whose aim is to amend several laws that deal with revenue-raising measures or even repeal of entire taxation provisions as one of the Acts passed through the use of an omnibus Bill. It is his case that the amendments in a Finance Bill cannot be said to be minor amendments, and the same scenario applies to a Statute Law (Miscellaneous Amendment) Bill whose intention is to amend many statutes. His conclusion is that nothing bars Parliament from using a Statute Law (Miscellaneous Amendment) Bill as long as the principle of public participation is adhered to. 662. The 6th Respondent explains that among the reasons for the use of Statute Law (Miscellaneous Amendment) Bills by Parliament is the need to address backlogs in unlegislated areas and to save on parliamentary time. He contends that as admitted by the Petitioners, the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Amendment) Bill No. 12 of 2018 had objects and reasons, and a Memorandum of Objects and Reasons gives the intent and purpose of a Bill. In respect of the Statute law (Miscellaneous Amendment) Act (No. 18 of 2018 [Bill No. 12 of 2018] the objects and reasons were given as the making of “various wide-ranging amendments on various statutes” thus explaining the intent and purpose of the Bill. http://www.kenyalaw.org - Page 105/174