MPs chide Senators over supremacy

By ALLAN KISIA and VITALIS KIMUTAI

There was heated debate on the floor of the House over who was superior between MPs and Senators.

MPs insisted they were superior to their Senate counterparts thanks to the Constitution. Debate started when Suba MP John Mbadi said taking the Division of Revenue Bill 2013 to the Senate was unconstitutional. He argued the Senate only has powers to handle revenue touching on county governments and not national revenue.

House Speaker Justin Muturi thanked Mbadi for raising the matter and said he would rule on the matter today afternoon.

“We need to make sure whatever we do is in line with the Constitution. Thank you for raising the issue because it is fundamental to the way we do business here,” he said.

The Division of Revenue Bill 2013 is an Act of Parliament to provide for equitable division of revenue raised between the national and county governments in the 2013/2014 financial year. After Mbadi raised the matter, MPs turned the debate around and accused Senators of looking down upon members of the National Assembly and bragging they are superior.

The Senate was called a place for retirees and the Senators accused of being idle because of having little to do.

And as the debate went on, Kiharu MP Irungu Kang’ata said he wants the Senate disbanded and its current duties taken over by Governors in the spirit of devolution.

Mbadi argued committing the Bill to the Senate might bring forth challenges in the event Senators propose amendments.

Leader of Minority Francis Nyenze said Article 95 and 96 of the Constitution say Senators should only deal with county matters.

“Kenyans with their wisdom created the Senate for the purpose of devolution. That is why they are there to fight for the counties. If we talk about supremacy, Kenyans are wise enough,” he said.

Nyenze said the role of Senators is implementation of devolution. “That is where their focus should be,” he added.

Igembe South Mithika Linturi said Senators think they are superior because they failed to interpret the Constitution.

“I really did not expect senior citizens to misinterpret the Constitution. If they had read the Constitution and understood it, they would have made the right decisions,” he added.