Denis Young
Elder Lister
I have mentioned this several times before. I don't know whether it is a factor of the 2010 constitution or it is just the times.
The courts have been really leaning heavily on the constitutional provision for public participation. However, the constitution doesn't expressly provide for what encompasses adequate public participation.
The courts nullified bills, including finance bill 2022/2023, claiming there wasn't enough public participation.
What measure did they use to determing public participation wasn't enough?
Well, the orders above seem to imply that the measure of good public participation is that which is performed at the constituency level. Also don't forget that any changes done during the third reading must be taken for public participation according to another court.
Now imagine the logistics cost of that ruling. Does it makes any sense?
I also pose the question, aren't judges usurping the law creation role of parliament by legislating from the bench? Why aren't these legislations by the judges not subject to public participation too?
Tafakari hayo!
