Entry Instance

HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept

{
    "id": 706557,
    "url": "http://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/706557/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 214,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. (Dr.) Nyikal",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 434,
        "legal_name": "James Nyikal",
        "slug": "james-nyikal"
    },
    "content": "people lack faith in the courts that would deliver justice. So, people take the law into their own hands. This law is, therefore, extremely important. In Clause 10, there is the issue of strict liability. It talks of publications that are adverse to justice. Given that it is broad, there are provisions that will protect those involved in the publication. One, they may not have been aware at the time that they were making the publication that there were proceedings in that nature. Two, they may not have been aware that during distribution of the publication there was already a case going on. That makes it a fair piece of legislation. If you look at Clauses 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17, as all my colleagues have said, you find that they are protective of the people and actually are in line with the Bill of Rights in our Constitution. For example, if you look at Clause 15, a person is not guilty of contempt of court for publishing any fair comment on the merits of any case which has been heard and determined. That is as it should be. If it has been determined then anybody should be able to make a comment on that. A person is not guilty of contempt of court in respect of any complaint made by the person in good faith concerning the presiding officer of any subordinate court to a competent authority, judge or a judicial officer. If that was not included then you would not have any recourse if you feel that your rights have been affected by a presiding officer because any attempt to report it would amount to contempt of court. That provision means that if you feel that your rights have been subjugated you can justifiably complain. Clause 17 says that a person is not guilty of contempt of court for publishing a fair and accurate report of judicial proceedings before any court sitting in chambers or in camera. Surely, if the report is correct while the proceedings are going on, that is something that people should have the right to report on. It thus gives limitations where it is thought that this would be injurious to public interest. Once again, you see a very thoughtful process that has gone into this. Many of my colleagues have commented on Clause 19 regarding recording proceedings. That has been taken care of. We have heard that it seems to be retrogressive and not in line with the Constitution we have now. Under Clause 20, a person is not guilty of contempt of court for refusing to disclose the source of information contained in a publication. This is extremely important. People would not give information if they felt that giving information would jeopardise their wellbeing. To that extent, that is extremely acceptable, at least, in my view. This Bill gives a very clear process of proceedings. If you look at Part IV, there are very clear processes of how the proceedings should go on. Once again, you see a very clear attempt to make things as fair as possible to those who are affected. Offences in terms of contempt in Part V are very clear and numerous. There would be no question as to what constitutes an offence. I find this piece of legislation progressive. It is much better than the law we had before, which we now seek to repeal. To that extent, I support the Bill."
}